From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11369 invoked by alias); 17 Aug 2009 17:47:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 11358 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Aug 2009 17:47:06 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout7.012.net.il (HELO mtaout7.012.net.il) (84.95.2.19) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:46:57 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.i-mtaout7.012.net.il by i-mtaout7.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KOJ00E007KWBN00@i-mtaout7.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:46:44 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.100.152]) by i-mtaout7.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KOJ006EE81VB7B0@i-mtaout7.012.net.il>; Mon, 17 Aug 2009 20:46:44 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:55:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [patch/doc] Tweak "info inferiors" output. In-reply-to: <200908171537.27573.pedro@codesourcery.com> To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83hbw6ibcl.fsf@gnu.org> References: <200908141646.01031.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200908142016.00060.pedro@codesourcery.com> <834osajgrf.fsf@gnu.org> <200908171537.27573.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2009-08/txt/msg00244.txt.bz2 > From: Pedro Alves > Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 15:37:27 +0100 > > Before > I change that, if we were to add column headers to "info threads", what > would we call it's second column? This is really the same thing > applied to inferiors. Let me turn the table around and ask you how about if we remove the column headers from "info inferiors" display, like with "info threads"? > Here's what the docs say when describing "info threads": > > @item > the target system's thread identifier (@var{systag}) > @end enumerate I can live with that. > > For processes, I'd prefer "process (PID NNN)". > > Hmm, not sure. The data in parentheses looks like > something that isn't mandatory to be displayed, just > something extra when there's row space for it. But, just "process" > doesn't make sense here. We use something similar to my suggestion when we report the LWP thread IDs. But I see now that we use "process NNN" in "info threads", so I guess there are precedents and we can go with your original suggestion, although I can't say I like this form. > What do you think of this one? It's fine, thanks. > We just need to settle on the column name, I think. Or lack thereof ;-) > +An asterisk @samp{*} to the left of the @value{GDBN} inferior number That's really a nit, but if we ever get GDB speak other languages, that ``to the left of'' will be incorrect with some languages. Maybe ``preceding the @value{GDBN} inferior number'' is better.