From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5863 invoked by alias); 28 Apr 2004 21:51:16 -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 5850 invoked from network); 28 Apr 2004 21:51:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 28 Apr 2004 21:51:10 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i3SLp9KI001398 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:51:09 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (to-dhcp51.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.151]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i3SLp6v12040; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:51:07 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 396622B9D; Wed, 28 Apr 2004 17:51:06 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <40902749.1040102@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2004 21:51:00 -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: Bob Rossi Cc: Stefan Weyergraf , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] implements MI "-file-list-exec-sections" (updated) References: <200404222356.57808.stefan@weyergraf.de> <20040422112230.GA7237@white> In-Reply-To: <20040422112230.GA7237@white> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00649.txt.bz2 [sorry I've been off line] > On Thu, Apr 22, 2004 at 11:56:36PM +0200, Stefan Weyergraf wrote: > >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >>> Hash: SHA1 >>> >>> Resubmitting updated (against current CVS) patch. Includes changes to GDB/MI >>> and docs. No test case yet. >>> Maybe it's worth mentioning, that GDB/CLI output for "info file" changes with >>> this patch which will probably break programs that parse this. (I don't think >>> such programs exist) > > > I get the feeling that changing the CLI output of "info file" is a bad > idea. My hunch is that some front ends to GDB are calling that function. One motivation of MI was to free us of this concern, we have to start somewhere. I should look at this in the morning. Andrew