From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 605 invoked by alias); 11 May 2012 20:55:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 595 invoked by uid 22791); 11 May 2012 20:55:25 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,RCVD_IN_NIX_SPAM,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il (HELO mtaout22.012.net.il) (80.179.55.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 11 May 2012 20:55:12 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0M3V00M00M335N00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 11 May 2012 23:54:41 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.210.75]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0M3V00L93M35XQ60@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Fri, 11 May 2012 23:54:41 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 20:55:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [RFA] Completion of add-inferior In-reply-to: <87txzmxye6.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> To: Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83obpuxwr4.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83pqaay5b3.fsf@gnu.org> <87txzmxye6.fsf@fleche.redhat.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: 2012-05/txt/msg00453.txt.bz2 > From: Tom Tromey > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > Date: Fri, 11 May 2012 14:20:49 -0600 > > >>>>> "Eli" == Eli Zaretskii writes: > > Eli> 2012-05-11 Eli Zaretskii > Eli> * inferior.c: Include completer.h > Eli> (initialize_inferiors): Set completer of add-inferior to > Eli> filename_completer. > > It isn't perhaps ideal, but it is better than the status quo, so ok. Thanks for the review. In what way is it not ideal? Did you want to complete on file names only when -exec was used? I thought about that, but then I realized that any other way of invoking that command cannot benefit from any completion at all. Or did you have something else in mind?