Re: RFC: implement "catch signal"

[Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com>]

On Mon, 03 Dec 2012 21:22:33 +0100, André Pönitz wrote:
> As a more general remark from a MI consumer's perspective: It's nicer to not
> change existing fields, but instead add new ones.
> 
> I understand that changing values is formally covered by the "guarantees" in
> sourceware.org/gdb/onlinedocs/gdb/GDB_002fMI-Development-and-Front-Ends.html,
> as this is covered by "The range of values for fields with specified values
> [...] may be extended" but I would like to think that the basic idea behind
> writing those rules was to not break consumers of existing MI output when
> extending that output. A preference of adding new fields over changing
> contents (or even "type" of existing fields) should increase the chance
> that frontends don't break, and can adjust to the change at their own pace.

In such case maybe the original behavior was most compatible, just ", " -> " ".

Or there could be:

body=[bkpt={number="1",type="catchpoint",disp="keep",enabled="y",what="<signal>",signal=["SIGINT","SIGTRAP"],times="0"}]


Jan