From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11567 invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2004 15:12:43 -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 11560 invoked from network); 19 Mar 2004 15:12:42 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Mar 2004 15:12:42 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45FA32B92; Fri, 19 Mar 2004 10:12:41 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <405B0DE9.50203@gnu.org> Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 15:12:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040217 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jason Molenda Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC patch mi-cmds.c table format (pedantic) References: <6994FFF8-786D-11D8-9229-000393D457E2@apple.com> <4059FEA9.4030401@gnu.org> <3489FABC-793D-11D8-A2F0-000393D457E2@apple.com> In-Reply-To: <3489FABC-793D-11D8-A2F0-000393D457E2@apple.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00451.txt.bz2 > > On Mar 18, 2004, at 11:55 AM, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> First, have a look at: >> http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit- trail&database=gdb&pr=496 > > > Ah, I hadn't seen that. > > How do you envision the cli-mapped mi commands working (e.g. -gdb-set), where files in the gdb/ directory are registering the commands? There shouldn't be cli-mapped mi commands. Both the MI and CLI should share a common framework. However, in the mean time, I guess such a table should be pump-primed with all the cli-mapped mi entries. > OK I'll come up with a real/tested patch. The trailing initializers -- you don't mean this kind of change, do you? > >>> - { "exec-step", { NULL, 0 }, mi_cmd_exec_step}, >>> + { "exec-step", { NULL, 0 }, mi_cmd_exec_step, NULL}, > > > I think you were talking about the final NULL entry. Skip them as well, I don't see the benefit. Andrew