From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28389 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2003 16:43:03 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 28376 invoked from network); 19 Oct 2003 16:42:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (65.49.0.121) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Oct 2003 16:42:53 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D65A82B89; Sun, 19 Oct 2003 12:42:48 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3F92BF08.4030607@gnu.org> Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 16:43:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii , Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Breakpoint infrastructure cleanups [0/8] References: <20031008165534.GA8718@nevyn.them.org> <20031008190502.GA13579@nevyn.them.org> <20031009140848.GA29621@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00612.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2003 10:08:48 -0400 >> From: Daniel Jacobowitz >> >> From a user interface perspective, I got a really strong negative >> pushback the last time I tried to add a switch to any GDB command. > > > Any pointers to messages where such pushback could be seen? I'm > curious what could be the motivation. A syntax, using GDB's `/' qualifier vis: (gdb) info breakpoints/locations works well. In fact I can see a strong preference for the terse version: (gdb) info break/l and that is even 1:2 characters shorter than: (gdb) info break --l (gdb) info break -l Given that files are not involved (load/vma /lma), it also avoids immediatly CLI changes. Andrew > Another possibility would be to have 2 commands: "info breakpoints" > which only shows one breakpoint for each user breakpoint, and "info > all-breakpoints", which shows all of them. We already have a > precedent for such an arrangement with "info registers" vs "info > all-registers". > > Anyway, going to the maint-land is something I think we should avoid > in this case, as the breakpoints not shown by default are interesting > not only for GDB maintainers. > >