Re: 'info os' additions again

[Stan Shebs <stanshebs@earthlink.net>]

On 5/10/12 5:21 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 05/10/2012 06:18 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>
>>> Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 14:16:46 -0700
>>> From: Stan Shebs<stanshebs@earthlink.net>
>>> CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>>>
>>>> FWIW, I never understood the reason why others prefer "info os".
>>> I'm sure a lot of it comes from the same-but-differentness of the Unix
>>> family.  I myself have my right hand on a Macbook and left hand on a
>>> Dell running Linux, and so if I'm sticking to Posix API, I want GDB to
>>> work the same on the two.
>> Can you show the "same but different" sub-commands we have now?
>>
>> What I see in osdata.c is that the info comes from a target-specific
>> XML file, so it could be anything.
>
> [...]
>
> It is more useful to consider its MI variant (has it been contributed yet?  I thought
> it had, but I can't see it now), where the frontend queries GDB for what tables does
> the backend expose (with the MI version of a plain "info os", which returns
> a table with the list of supported objects), and then presents them in
> spreadsheet-like format, all without any target-knowledge hard coding.  Exposing
> more GNU/Linux objects through the mechanism in the GNU/Linux backends serves
> the purpose of being the reference implementation / proof-of-concept.  Vladimir worked
> on an Eclipse plugin that made use of all this, and it was in the progress
> of being pushed to Eclipse upstream last I heard of it.  I'm not aware of its
> current status.

They're waiting for the GDB bits (including the MI patch which is in my 
queue) to become available, which is why I want to get this resolved one 
way or another.  It's a little ironic that Eclipse folks, who don't care 
about command-line syntax, are being blocked on a discussion of 
command-line syntax. :-)

If everybody is tired of the issue, I'll just make a decision; things 
can always be changed later.

Stan