RE: symbolic debug of loadable modules with kgdb light

Caz Yokoyama
2009-10-01T19:53:54Z

> after all. I suggested break-g over SysRq-g because perhaps SysRq
>could be implemented through a different character (?).
I agree. BREAK-g is OK for you?. Eli may prefer also.
-caz

-----Original Message-----
From: Joel Brobecker [mailto:brobecker@adacore.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 12:37 PM
To: Caz Yokoyama
Cc: 'Eli Zaretskii'; pedro@codesourcery.com; gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: symbolic debug of loadable modules with kgdb light

> >> +set remote interrupt-sequence [Ctrl-C | BREAK | SysRq-g]
> >You changed the user interface again, this is really frustrating.
> Sorry for frustrating you. The reason I changed is the following words by
> Eli.

OK - sorry if I snapped a little. I couldn't understand this even after
re-reviewing the previous emails. I think you misunderstood what Eli
said, but I will let him confirm (and re-explain) or deny that.

As I said, either way is fine by me at this point, I just want the
functionality to be there, and the naming is not hugely important
after all. I suggested break-g over SysRq-g because perhaps SysRq
could be implemented through a different character (?).

> >Please use the same conventions for these keys as in the portion you are
> replacing. >For example, BREAK should be in caps and control-c should be
> spelled Ctrl-C.
>
> When interrupt sequence is controlled by remotebreak, the user does not
need
> to enter strings. On the other hand, s/he has to specify sequence name on
> "set remote interrupt-sequence". In addition, the sequence name has to be
> same on document and actual command. Therefore, I changed according to
Eli.
> Let me know what you want.

--
Joel