Re: [RFC PATCH] Allow disabling the default run target.

[Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>]

On 03/14/2014 11:47 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2014 11:06:32 +0000
>> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
>> CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
>>
>> On 03/13/2014 08:16 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>>> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
>>>> Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2014 19:02:48 +0000
>>>>
>>>> Wonder what people think of this.
>>>
>>> FWIW, the names of commands and options confused me a lot.
>>
>> Thanks Eli.  I battled with several different namings, and
>> all the others seemed worse.  :-)  But I do think we should
>> try to come up with something better -- always a bad sign
>> to me when a GDB maintainer is confused.  Probably users
>> will be even more.
>>
>> Can you point out specifically what confused you?
> 
> "target child" itself, and then the apparent disconnect between that
> and the option name, although NEWS says that "'target child' [...]
> connects to the default run target".  Also, the fact that setting
> default-run-target to OFF actually _enables_ something (AFAIU).

No, it disables the fallback to the default run target if
no target is pushed yet.

>> I've been pondering renaming "target child" to something else.
>> "child" is a little lie in case of "attach".
>> By best suggestion so far is "target native".
> 
> "target native" is a much better name, IMO.

OK, I'll see if others have comments, and then propose
that with a patch.

>> I'd suggest just removing go32_open, and letting inf-child.c's
>> to_open handle pushing the target.
> 
> Fine with me.  I don't think "target djgpp" was ever important anyway,
> I think it's there mostly for completeness.

OK.

> Maybe we should take a step back and discuss why this fallback is
> useful.  Is it only so native debugging works by default without a
> need to say "target native"?

Yes.  It's what makes

 $ gdb program
 (gdb) run

Just Work.

-- 
Pedro Alves