From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12917 invoked by alias); 26 Jan 2006 07:10:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 12909 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jan 2006 07:10:32 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from main.gmane.org (HELO ciao.gmane.org) (80.91.229.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 07:10:31 +0000 Received: from root by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1F21Gz-00089U-6c for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:10:25 +0100 Received: from zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su ([158.250.17.23]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:10:25 +0100 Received: from ghost by zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:10:25 +0100 To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com From: Vladimir Prus Subject: Re: [PATCH] Add fullname field for MI -break-info command Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 07:10:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <200601241932.16022.ghost@cs.msu.su> <20060125121030.GJ28357@brasko.net> <200601251544.27477.ghost@cs.msu.su> <20060125134549.GB20856@brasko.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit User-Agent: KNode/0.8.2 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00421.txt.bz2 Bob Rossi wrote: >> > > > Also, don't forget about the documentation. >> > > >> > > Well, at the moment the -break-info command is not documented at all, >> > > so there's no place where I can add the extra "fullname" field. >> > >> > Hmm, there is a section in the gdb.texinfo manual that says >> > @c REDUNDANT??? >> > Get information about a single breakpoint. >> > how is this command useful, instead of just using -break-list? >> >> Hmm, so I should update all examples of "-break-list" output as well? >> What path should I put there? Is >> /home/foo/bar/.c fine? > > Yes, please update the documentation for -break-list, and I don't know > if you should even bother with -break-info. I still don't know if that > command should exist if it's identical to -break-list. A machine > interface does not need 2 commands for the same functionatlity, IMO. Strictly speaking, they are not the same. -break-list is documented to print list of all breakpoints, while -break-info is documented to print information about one breakpoint. - Volodya