From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11334 invoked by alias); 16 Jun 2012 21:32:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 11324 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jun 2012 21:32:34 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 16 Jun 2012 21:32:19 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q5GLWH6R029081 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 16 Jun 2012 17:32:17 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-33.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.33]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q5GLVoph009191 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Sat, 16 Jun 2012 17:32:02 -0400 Date: Sat, 16 Jun 2012 21:32:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] -iex and -ix: Execute them _after_ gdbinits Message-ID: <20120616213126.GA12840@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <20120616195417.GA6368@host2.jankratochvil.net> <83txybdnue.fsf@gnu.org> <20120616201312.GA7000@host2.jankratochvil.net> <83sjdvdkns.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <83sjdvdkns.fsf@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2012-06/txt/msg00553.txt.bz2 On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 23:14:15 +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > My concern is about what happens before ~/.gdbinit is loaded, so > nothing that happens after that can resolve that. I do not understand which command would you want to run before ~/.gdbinit. Real world ~/.gdbinit should only change settings or define new commands. > > I have not found a use case where the current behavior is better. > > It doesn't have to be better. It has the advantage of being there > first. It's the new behavior that must have a significant advantage > to justify an incompatible change of behavior. The idea is that this is not a "change" as 7.4 did not have -iex at all. -iex/-ix is a new feature for 7.5 so I am trying to make it right before it becomes a standard. > But setting auto-load is not the only thing I can do with -iex. I can > have any number of commands there which have nothing to do with > safe-path and stuff. It can affect only commands/settings which have some influence on the loading of inferior. There are not so many of such settings. Besides safe-path also "set debug-file-directory" and associated "set sysroot", not sure which more commands, if any. "set debug-file-directory" - if set in /etc/gdbinit or ~/.gdbinit - currently also cannot be overriden by -iex. > We are removing a potentially useful feature for reasons that were not > justified well enough. Are there any reasons beyond the auto-load > issue? If not, I submit the reasons are not grave enough for the > change, certainly not in a minor release. [again] The idea is that this is not a "change" as 7.4 did not have -iex at all. -iex/-ix is a new feature for 7.5 so I am trying to make it right before it becomes a standard. auto-load general acceptance looks to be bad so far so I try to improve its user visible interface as best as I can. > And I don't see why we should pay so much attention to what Fedora > does in its GDB distribution. This is unrelated to Fedora. If I looked at Fedora then I can say that the current -iex/-ix is already an established standard and it cannot be changed anymore. I do track FSF gdb-7.5 release for this change. > For example, I always build my own GDB, on any platform I work, and I don't > see why I should be punished because Fedora does something. I really do not understand meaning of this paragraph. I specifically care about FSF GDB release at this moment where the change in some way may negatively affect F17 users where the current behavior is already deployed. Still I do not think this change can anyhow negatively affect -iex use. Thanks, Jan