From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29813 invoked by alias); 9 May 2012 04:46:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 29805 invoked by uid 22791); 9 May 2012 04:46:38 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-4.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout21.012.net.il (HELO mtaout21.012.net.il) (80.179.55.169) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 May 2012 04:46:19 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout21.012.net.il by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0M3Q00C00NUPR000@a-mtaout21.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 09 May 2012 07:46:17 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.210.75]) by a-mtaout21.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0M3Q00CW1NX4LW50@a-mtaout21.012.net.il>; Wed, 09 May 2012 07:46:17 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 09 May 2012 04:46:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: 'info os' additions again In-reply-to: <4FA9A2FA.3090307@earthlink.net> To: Stan Shebs Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83k40m0xqt.fsf@gnu.org> References: <4FA9A2FA.3090307@earthlink.net> 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: 2012-05/txt/msg00250.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 08 May 2012 15:49:30 -0700 > From: Stan Shebs > > I tend to favor "info os ..." because it fits the > progressive refinement that is a hallmark of GDB commands - the user can > remember it as "info, and it's OS-related, but I just want semaphores". > The user doesn't have to consider what OS name might be expected, "os" > always works to connect to the class of OS-specific info displays. > > However, we also have an alternate tradition of "info > ...", including "info dos", "info w32", "info spu", etc. By that > tradition, Linux-specific info should be "info linux", and if there were > BSD OS info, it would be "info bsd", and so forth. It's simpler to > document, because the manual can just have a section for each subcommand > that enumerates the subsubcommands that are available. Unfortunately > for consistency, we've also had "info os" for several years. My personal take of this is that (since quite naturally, most of the new features introduced into GDB are Linux-specific), "info os" will rapidly become a hodgepodge of Linux-specific commands, with only a few supported on other platforms. At that point, "info os" will simply be a grossly misleading name, confusing to users of other platforms and hard to describe clearly in the documentation. FWIW, I never understood the reason why others prefer "info os". But I seem to be in the minority on this one, as always.