From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4658 invoked by alias); 16 Sep 2009 18:03:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 4475 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Sep 2009 18:03:34 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:03:30 +0000 Received: from int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.17]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n8GI2YSg010220; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:02:35 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx04.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n8GI2Xuw009527; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:02:34 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n8GI2WUG029052; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 14:02:32 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id EDA6D378198; Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:02:31 -0600 (MDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Hui Zhu Cc: Marc Khouzam , Pedro Alves , "gdb-patches\@sourceware.org" , Joel Brobecker , Michael Snyder Subject: Re: Another proposal for frontends and queries. References: <200909161425.48262.pedro@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 18:03:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Hui Zhu's message of "Wed, 16 Sep 2009 22:17:05 +0800") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00523.txt.bz2 >>>>> ">" == Hui Zhu writes: >> And about the patch I said can handle this issue is "set record query >> " patch. I cannot find who don't like this patch. I don't like it, I think I said that in another thread. The reason I don't like it is twofold. First, queries are a general feature of gdb. They are sprinkled about rather liberally. So, if one causes problems for a front end, then it probably represents a general class of problems. IMO, fixing it in this ad hoc way is not a good way to attack a generic problem. The thought experiment to perform here is to consider generalizing this solution to all the queries in gdb. I think that would result in madness: hundreds of "disable this query" settings. Second, this has the feeling of an "unbreak my gdb" option. That is, setting an option to avoid one particular query says to me that the query is probably badly chosen in some way. Tom