From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25558 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2006 13:15:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 25547 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Nov 2006 13:15:26 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from fra-del-01.spheriq.net (HELO fra-del-01.spheriq.net) (195.46.51.97) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Nov 2006 13:15:16 +0000 Received: from fra-out-03.spheriq.net (fra-out-03.spheriq.net [195.46.51.131]) by fra-del-01.spheriq.net with ESMTP id kA2DFDQj011887 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:15:13 GMT Received: from fra-cus-02.spheriq.net (fra-cus-02.spheriq.net [195.46.51.38]) by fra-out-03.spheriq.net with ESMTP id kA2DFCZd019005 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:15:12 GMT Received: from beta.dmz-eu.st.com (beta.dmz-eu.st.com [164.129.1.35]) by fra-cus-02.spheriq.net with ESMTP id kA2DF9gH012852 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=EDH-RSA-DES-CBC3-SHA bits=168 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:15:12 GMT Received: from zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (ns2.st.com [164.129.230.9]) by beta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id 14CD3DA42 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:15:09 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail1.cro.st.com (mail1.cro.st.com [164.129.40.131]) by zeta.dmz-eu.st.com (STMicroelectronics) with ESMTP id BA8F04754C for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2006 13:15:08 +0000 (GMT) Received: from [10.18.180.51] ([10.18.180.51]) by mail1.cro.st.com (MOS 3.5.8-GR) with ESMTP id CIV78831 (AUTH "frederic riss"); Thu, 2 Nov 2006 14:15:07 +0100 (CET) Subject: Re: [rfc] "reset" / "create-inferior" commands From: Frederic RISS To: GDB Patches In-Reply-To: <4549DC03.60504@st.com> References: <20061101202811.GA20484@nevyn.them.org> <4549DC03.60504@st.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2006 13:15:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1162473306.3219.74.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-11/txt/msg00010.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > [I would actually have picked "restart" over "reset", but that's taken for > checkpoints. We could still steal it and use "restart checkpoint 1" for > checkpoints, if others think restart is preferable to reset.] I would say that 'reset' is better. The issue I have with 'restart' is simple: it seems related to the 'start' command which does something totally different. Even semantically 'reset' seems more clear (to set anew). Maybe 'reinit' would be even better? That's a command for pretty advanced users. Even if the name isn't descriptive enough it isn't a big deal... but I think avoiding the confusion with 'start' is important for basic users. Fred.