From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30865 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2013 17:25:30 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 30849 invoked by uid 89); 18 Nov 2013 17:25:29 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50,RDNS_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mtaout23.012.net.il Received: from Unknown (HELO mtaout23.012.net.il) (80.179.55.175) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:24:59 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout23.012.net.il by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MWG00D00Y8Z7F00@a-mtaout23.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:24:50 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout23.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MWG00DPEZ1E5H70@a-mtaout23.012.net.il>; Mon, 18 Nov 2013 19:24:50 +0200 (IST) Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 17:29:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [RFA 1/2] New GDB/MI command "-info-gdb-mi-command" In-reply-to: <1384794719-20594-2-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83y54lfwrm.fsf@gnu.org> References: <528631F2.40408@redhat.com> <1384794719-20594-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <1384794719-20594-2-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00481.txt.bz2 > From: Joel Brobecker > Date: Mon, 18 Nov 2013 21:11:58 +0400 > > Regarding some questions Eli had: > > | > +(the leading dash (@code{-}) in the command name should be omitted). > | Is this wise? How about if we support both with and without the dash? > > I now think that it was indeed the correct choice. Not only does it > facilitate implementation (but only marginally), it also is consistent > with the current output. For instance, notice how GDB names the command > in the following error message: > > -unsupported > ^error,msg="Undefined MI command: unsupported" > ^^^^^^^^^^^ > (no leading dash) Your example shows _output_ from MI. By contrast, we are talking about _input_. When I send commands to MI, I cannot omit the leading dash, so it can be very natural to consider it part of the command. We don't have to advertise that we support the dash, > Also, looking at the grammar, the leading dash isn't listed > as part of what they call the "operation" IMO, this line of reasoning makes little sense to users. Grammars are for programs, not for people. > --- a/gdb/NEWS > +++ b/gdb/NEWS > @@ -153,6 +153,9 @@ show startup-with-shell > > ** All MI commands now accept an optional "--language" option. > > + ** The new command -info-gdb-mi-command allows the user to determine > + whether a GDB/MI command is supported or not. > + OK for this part. > +Here is an example where the @sc{gdb/mi} command does not exist: > + > +@smallexample > +-info-gdb-mi-command unsupported-command > +^done,command=@{exists="false"@} > +@end smallexample > + > +And here is an example where the @sc{gdb/mi} command is known > +to the debugger: You want @noindent before "And here". The documentation parts are OK with that change. Thanks.