From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2755 invoked by alias); 8 May 2012 23:55:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 2747 invoked by uid 22791); 8 May 2012 23:55:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 May 2012 23:55:40 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF5A21C6AA2; Tue, 8 May 2012 19:55:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id X-dfA4sPxG6s; Tue, 8 May 2012 19:55:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF50E1C6A74; Tue, 8 May 2012 19:55:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 30F4D145616; Tue, 8 May 2012 16:55:33 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 23:55:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Stan Shebs Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: 'info os' additions again Message-ID: <20120508235533.GE15555@adacore.com> References: <4FA9A2FA.3090307@earthlink.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FA9A2FA.3090307@earthlink.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2012-05/txt/msg00246.txt.bz2 > 1. What to do with the submitted patch? ("info os" or "info linux" > or something else) > > 2. What policy to set for the future? It's kind of hard for me to feel confident in a general comment without having really looked at the discussion, but generally speaking, I tend to favor per-feature command rather than per- platform commands. I'm sure some features are going to be very obviously specific to some targets, and it might make sense in those cases to use target-specific commands, but I would tend to go with per-feature command, possibly with a way to ask the debugger whether the feature is available or not. > 3. Change existing info commands to conform to a policy, or allow > inconsistencies for the sake of backward compatibility? I think compatibility is important. We might want to transition the current commands in terms of the implementation, but we will probably need to keep the old commands around for a while, possibly as aliases. We could also consider progressive deprecation, with a grace period during which the use of the command triggers a warning with a note mentioning the new command that replaces the deprecated one. -- Joel