From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id 3tFfDiNNcmBDXAAAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 21:13:07 -0400 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id 2CF641EE1B; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 21:13:07 -0400 (EDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44D6C1E01F for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 21:13:06 -0400 (EDT) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3DFE3891C02; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 01:13:05 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org A3DFE3891C02 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1618103585; bh=zXPChNBgr0+h473tzSRqrk+J7T81dd6Fk0sqIbwRdZw=; h=Subject:To:References:Date:In-Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe:From:Reply-To:Cc: From; b=x0VoAeom2vWdr45QGsw0xyKlsnGLly9YIkqTj4RWB83TKsH6r42sVTAGoSh05yoXa fNKGk/4+7KUU37L33u4Zfn1HxIFh7ba2PVy1nd/po4X6uyJRUecBGuTMC9LiocZlF4 8ipCJ0lHvvUy//MVpO3Msa5GMwxJZDNFpE6vbRfk= Received: from smtp.polymtl.ca (smtp.polymtl.ca [132.207.4.11]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 423383891C00 for ; Sun, 11 Apr 2021 01:13:00 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org 423383891C00 Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) (authenticated bits=0) by smtp.polymtl.ca (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 13B1CmWR002247 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 10 Apr 2021 21:12:53 -0400 DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 smtp.polymtl.ca 13B1CmWR002247 Received: from [10.0.0.11] (192-222-157-6.qc.cable.ebox.net [192.222.157.6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 256631E01F; Sat, 10 Apr 2021 21:12:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] gdb/mi: add a '--force-condition' flag to the '-break-insert' cmd To: Jonah Graham , Tankut Baris Aktemur References: Message-ID: Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2021 21:12:47 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Poly-FromMTA: (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) at Sun, 11 Apr 2021 01:12:48 +0000 X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Simon Marchi via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Simon Marchi Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" On 2021-04-10 9:06 p.m., Jonah Graham wrote:> On Thu, 8 Apr 2021 at 10:23, Tankut Baris Aktemur < > tankut.baris.aktemur@intel.com> wrote: > >> Add a '--force-condition' flag to the '-break-insert' command to be >> able to force conditions. The '-break-condition' command directly >> uses the CLI's 'cond' command; hence, it already recognizes the >> '-force' flag. >> >> Because the '-dprintf-insert' command uses the same mechanism as the >> '-break-insert' command, it obtains the '--force-condition' flag, too. >> > > I don't know whether it matters, but in (MI) -break-condition, (CLI) break, > and (CLI) condition the force flag starts with one dash, but in (MI) > -break-insert/-dprintf-insert it starts with two dashes. > > I think there is a convention that the MI long option names start with two > dashes, so -break-condition should probably accept --force for consistency. > The CLI certainly doesn't seem to have such a consistency AFAIU. Good point, I think we should make -break-condition use --force. Since it wasn't released yet, we can still change it. Simon