From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20231 invoked by alias); 11 Nov 2013 14:48:20 -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 20214 invoked by uid 89); 11 Nov 2013 14:48:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 11 Nov 2013 14:47:38 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rABElThr017004 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 11 Nov 2013 09:47:29 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-94.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.94]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rABElSHf001706 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 11 Nov 2013 09:47:28 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Add ada-exception-catchpoints to -list-features command output. References: <1384076960-12339-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2013 15:22:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <1384076960-12339-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> (Joel Brobecker's message of "Sun, 10 Nov 2013 13:49:20 +0400") Message-ID: <8761rzknb4.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00292.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker writes: Joel> This patch adds an entry meant to help the frontend for those features. Joel> But looking at the way the -list-features command is designed, I am Joel> wondering whether this approach is going to scale well. As new commands Joel> and other new features or major bug fixes get in, it seems like the Joel> list is going to grow maybe a little beyond what's reasonable. We could add a way to check for specific commands. Then new commands would never need to be added to the feature list. Joel> So, although this patch proposes a new field (this is the straightforward Joel> approach), given that all this GDB/MI work was done within the same Joel> release cycle, and withing a reasonable amount of time, I think it Joel> would be fine for everyone to use one single field in -list-features. I think it is reasonable, too, provided that the MI docs note the details of what the feature means. Tom