From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31070 invoked by alias); 28 Dec 2011 20:40:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 31060 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Dec 2011 20:40:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (83.163.83.176) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 28 Dec 2011 20:39:53 +0000 Received: from glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id pBSKdj5s021432; Wed, 28 Dec 2011 21:39:45 +0100 (CET) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.5/8.14.3/Submit) id pBSKdgoO017841; Wed, 28 Dec 2011 21:39:42 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 20:48:00 -0000 Message-Id: <201112282039.pBSKdgoO017841@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> From: Mark Kettenis To: eliz@gnu.org CC: stanshebs@earthlink.net, gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <8362h1wu3y.fsf@gnu.org> (message from Eli Zaretskii on Wed, 28 Dec 2011 00:02:57 +0200) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add extra 'info os' information types for Linux (trunk and 7.4) References: <4E95DC58.7030805@codesourcery.com> <4ECD3496.1070609@codesourcery.com> <4EF9497B.9020501@earthlink.net> <201112272124.pBRLOdtk012930@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <8362h1wu3y.fsf@gnu.org> Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-12/txt/msg00880.txt.bz2 > Date: Wed, 28 Dec 2011 00:02:57 +0200 > From: Eli Zaretskii > > > Date: Tue, 27 Dec 2011 22:24:39 +0100 (CET) > > From: Mark Kettenis > > CC: stanshebs@earthlink.net, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > > Eli, I don't think your objection makes a lot of sense. > > That kind of argument is not an efficient way of making me change my > mind. Apologies. That came out a bit stronger than intended. I'm not even sure I'm trying to change your mind here. > > The "info os" > > is a generic command for displaying "osdata" that's made available by > > the backend. It is for the backend to decide what information is made > > available. This diff just adds a bit more "osdata" to the Linux > > native backend and the Linux gdbserver remote backend. > > Then let's lump there also the DOS- and Windows-specific "info" > commands for a good measure. > > IOW, either "info os" is a hodgepodge of every OS-specific information > we provide about the process being debugged, or we have OS-specific > "info FOO" ("info dos", "info w32", "info linux", etc.) commands. > Having some of this and some of that is just inconsistent. I'm not disagreeing here. It's just that the mechanism behind "info os" is totally different so unification here is not trivial.