Re: [PATCH 1/2] gdb: introduce command "info architecture"

[Guinevere Larsen <guinevere@redhat.com>]

On 11/27/25 5:00 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Nov 2025, Guinevere Larsen wrote:
>
>>>    We could reword output from `set architecture' so as not to suggest the
>>> use without an argument is invalid.
>>>
>>>    In any case the listing facility must not be an `info' subcommand, as
>>> these are meant for showing the state of the debuggee,
>> I disagree, in my opinion, this new command would function basically just like
>> "info unwinder", giving information on how GDB is able to interact with the
>> inferior.
>   Is it the semantics documented in the manual since forever (search for it
> and when it appeared there) that you disagree with?  I don't know what
> `info unwinder' is about, but maybe someone got it wrong too and it should
> be a `show' subcommand instead.

I know that this is what the manual and the help text say about "info", 
but that's not how the command has been used since at least the 1999 commit:

commit c906108c21474dfb4ed285bcc0ac6fe02cd400cc (tag: gdb-4_18-branchpoint)
Author: Stan Shebs <shebs@codesourcery.com>
Date:   Fri Apr 16 01:35:26 1999 +0000

     Initial creation of sourceware repository

in which the commands "info copying" and "info warranty" were added. The 
show version of these commands were only added in 2011.

>>>    while the set of
>>> architectures supported is a property of the given instance of GDB itself,
>>> and therefore suitable for the `set'/`show' commands.  So if a new command
>>> it would have to be `show architecture list' or suchlike.
>> My understanding is that set/show commands are mostly used for when the user
>> could change something, and the point of this command is showing the user the
>> compilation options that were used, there's no changes that a user could do.
>   Same as with:
>
> (gdb) show version
>
> -- it can't be changed by the user and there's no corresponding `set'
> command.
>
>    Maciej
>

-- 
Cheers,
Guinevere Larsen
It/she