From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17793 invoked by alias); 6 Jun 2008 13:24:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 17578 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jun 2008 13:24:55 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from imr2.ericy.com (HELO imr2.ericy.com) (198.24.6.3) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Jun 2008 13:24:34 +0000 Received: from eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw750.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.50]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m56DOMG2009733; Fri, 6 Jun 2008 08:24:22 -0500 Received: from ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se ([142.133.1.72]) by eusrcmw750.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 6 Jun 2008 08:24:22 -0500 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [Patch:Doc] Example for -exec-arguments Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2008 13:24:00 -0000 Message-ID: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA04291186@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <18504.22062.565990.33175@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> From: "Marc Khouzam" To: "Nick Roberts" , "Eli Zaretskii" Cc: X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-06/txt/msg00112.txt.bz2 > -exec-arguments is just "set args" really. The number of=20 > such commands that > could be created are almost limitless. Note that this one=20 > provides no output > for the MI front end to parse and the CLI command could=20 > easily be used. I > wonder if they are really needed and whether we should remove=20 > them (or at least > the ones which are unimplemented). Now that you point this out, I realize we can use "-gdb-set args" right now. Not only that, but -gdb-show args does works while -exec-show-arguments does not. I prefer to use -gdb-set since I can. > > > Also, the doc mentions -exec-show-arguments, but the actual > > > implementation in GDB is missing. Should this be=20 > written in the doc? > >=20 > > Yes, I think so. >=20 > That's what is written in the docs: >=20 > Example > ....... >=20=20 > Example(s) formatted for readability. Some of the=20 > described commands > have not been implemented yet and these are labeled N.A. (not > available). You are right. I had seen the N.A. and thought that just the example was n= ot available, not the whole command. Marc