From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-93714-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 25844 invoked by alias); 11 Aug 2012 17:52:33 -0000
Received: (qmail 25834 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Aug 2012 17:52:32 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.2 required=5.0	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il (HELO mtaout20.012.net.il) (80.179.55.166)    by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:52:18 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0M8L00I00QSPVV00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 20:52:15 +0300 (IDT)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0M8L00IQ6QZ2UE50@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Sat, 11 Aug 2012 20:52:15 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 17:52:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gdb: improve usage strings
In-reply-to: <201208111336.41052.vapier@gentoo.org>
To: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <83ehndco4n.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <1344704080-24677-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org> <83fw7tcpst.fsf@gnu.org> <201208111336.41052.vapier@gentoo.org>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2012-08/txt/msg00343.txt.bz2

> From: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>
> Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 13:36:40 -0400
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
> 
> static void
> finish_command (char *arg, int from_tty) 
> {
>   ...
> 
>   /* Find out whether we must run in the background.  */
>   if (arg != NULL)
>     async_exec = strip_bg_char (&arg);
> 
>   /* If we must run in the background, but the target can't do it,
>      error out.  */
>   if (async_exec && !target_can_async_p ())
>     error (_("Asynchronous execution not supported on this target."));
> 
>   /* If we are not asked to run in the bg, then prepare to run in the
>      foreground, synchronously.  */
>   if (!async_exec && target_can_async_p ())
>     {
>       /* Simulate synchronous execution.  */
>       async_disable_stdin ();
>     }
> 
>   if (arg)
>     error (_("The \"finish\" command does not take any arguments."));
>  ...
> 
> so it seems like finish *does* secretly accept options, but in this case it's 
> trying to be secret about it rather than someone just didn't fully document 
> it.  or i read the "arg" parsing logic above incorrectly.

Isn't that the case of "finish &" ?