Re: GDB Speak: `inferior' rather than `target'?

Re: GDB Speak: `inferior' rather than `target'?

[Nathanael Nerode]

Daniel wrote:
>I'm with Kevin - I don't like either inferior or target.  I'd suggest
>punting to debugee but it's too cumbersome.

"Debugee" is extremely clear.  Use it!

It doesn't translate well, of course, but so what?

--Nathanael

Re: GDB Speak: `inferior' rather than `target'?

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 12:06:32AM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> Daniel wrote:
> >I'm with Kevin - I don't like either inferior or target.  I'd suggest
> >punting to debugee but it's too cumbersome.
> 
> "Debugee" is extremely clear.  Use it!
> 
> It doesn't translate well, of course, but so what?

It's awkward.  And it can't be shortened at all - you end up with
debug, which could mean debugger.  Think of gdb/inf*...

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: GDB Speak: `inferior' rather than `target'?

[Andrew Cagney]

FYI,

The book `How Debuggers Work''s glossary contains:

debugee
The program being debugged.  The child process of the debugger.  Some 
authors have refered to the debuggee process as the ``inferior'' process.


So, either `debugee' or `inferior'.

Andrew

Re: GDB Speak: `inferior' rather than `target'?

[Stan Shebs]

Andrew Cagney wrote:

> Hello,
>
> In trying to correctly and clearly word some gdb comments (and yes ok, 
> and internal doco), I'm left wondering if we should `newspeak' some 
> terminology here and use the word `inferior' instead of `target'.

`Inferior' refers specifically to the process being debugged, while 
originally
`target' just referred to the system on which the process ran.  Things get
confused when you have targets or quasi-targets that can only correspond
to a single inferior.  `inferior' is really more Unix-specific than we
like, while `target program' gets too easily shortened to just `target',
thus compounding the confusion.

I haven't seen anybody else mention the real reason to use `inferior';
since it's the program being debugged, and therefore must have bugs,
it's clearly inferior to GDB!  :-)

Stan

Re: GDB Speak: `inferior' rather than `target'?

[Peter Reilley]

How about "subject".   As in; "The subject of an investigation".   Shortens
well to "sub".

Or, how about "patient".   As in; "Someone undergoing surgery".   Shortens
to "pat".

Just a thought,
Pete.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Felix Lee" <bdgle@tigerfood.org>
To: <gdb@sources.redhat.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 1:22 AM
Subject: Re: GDB Speak: `inferior' rather than `target'?


> how about "victim"?
> --
> 

Re: GDB Speak: `inferior' rather than `target'?

[Nick Kelsey]

I would have used DUT (device under test) but victim gets my vote :-)

mourn_victim() sounds reasonable.

Nick


----- Original Message -----
From: "Felix Lee" <bdgle@tigerfood.org>
To: <jafa@silicondust.com>
Sent: Monday, December 02, 2002 10:25 PM
Subject: Re: GDB Speak: `inferior' rather than `target'?


> *This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
> how about "victim"?
> --
>

Re: GDB Speak: `inferior' rather than `target'?

[Felix Lee]

how about "victim"?
--

Re: GDB Speak: `inferior' rather than `target'?

[Eli Zaretskii]

On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Kevin Buettner wrote:

> I may be wrong, but it's my impression that the use of the word
> `inferior' to describe an instance of the program being debugged is
> unique to GDB.

No, it's a somewhat common way of referring to a program run by another 
program.  Cf ``inferior shell'' etc.  As an example, try grepping the
Emacs manual for the word "inferior".

Re: GDB Speak: `inferior' rather than `target'?

[Andrew Cagney]

> On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 03:38:03PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
>> Hello,
>> 
>> In trying to correctly and clearly word some gdb comments (and yes ok, 
>> and internal doco), I'm left wondering if we should `newspeak' some 
>> terminology here and use the word `inferior' instead of `target'.
>> 
>> The problem with `target' is that it is totally overloaded.  The 
>> configuration target, the running target the target architecture, ....
>> 
>> Hence, when refering to an instance of the program being debugged, the 
>> word `inferior' should be used.  Of course, this would mean that `core' 
>> becomes an inferior (...).
> 
> 
> I've always used inferior only for a running target, generally a
> ptraced one locally.  But that's just my usage.
> 
> I'm with Kevin - I don't like either inferior or target.  I'd suggest
> punting to debugee but it's too cumbersome.

Not being in common use doesn't rule out GDB adopting it.  That is what 
good documentation (and a glosary) is for :-) (Debug engineers aren't 
exactly lying about on the ground so I'd not be suprized if its use 
wasn't common.  Perhaphs other debugers have other terms.

(debugee makes me cringe :-)

Andrew

Re: GDB Speak: `inferior' rather than `target'?

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 03:38:03PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> In trying to correctly and clearly word some gdb comments (and yes ok, 
> and internal doco), I'm left wondering if we should `newspeak' some 
> terminology here and use the word `inferior' instead of `target'.
> 
> The problem with `target' is that it is totally overloaded.  The 
> configuration target, the running target the target architecture, ....
> 
> Hence, when refering to an instance of the program being debugged, the 
> word `inferior' should be used.  Of course, this would mean that `core' 
> becomes an inferior (...).

I've always used inferior only for a running target, generally a
ptraced one locally.  But that's just my usage.

I'm with Kevin - I don't like either inferior or target.  I'd suggest
punting to debugee but it's too cumbersome.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer

Re: GDB Speak: `inferior' rather than `target'?

[Kevin Buettner]

On Dec 2,  3:38pm, Andrew Cagney wrote:

> In trying to correctly and clearly word some gdb comments (and yes ok, 
> and internal doco), I'm left wondering if we should `newspeak' some 
> terminology here and use the word `inferior' instead of `target'.
> 
> The problem with `target' is that it is totally overloaded.  The 
> configuration target, the running target the target architecture, ....
> 
> Hence, when refering to an instance of the program being debugged, the 
> word `inferior' should be used.  Of course, this would mean that `core' 
> becomes an inferior (...).
> 
> Thoughts?

I may be wrong, but it's my impression that the use of the word
`inferior' to describe an instance of the program being debugged is
unique to GDB.  That said, I don't think that the word `target' is
appropriate either.  I wish we could come up with some other term
altogether...

Kevin

GDB Speak: `inferior' rather than `target'?

[Andrew Cagney]

Hello,

In trying to correctly and clearly word some gdb comments (and yes ok, 
and internal doco), I'm left wondering if we should `newspeak' some 
terminology here and use the word `inferior' instead of `target'.

The problem with `target' is that it is totally overloaded.  The 
configuration target, the running target the target architecture, ....

Hence, when refering to an instance of the program being debugged, the 
word `inferior' should be used.  Of course, this would mean that `core' 
becomes an inferior (...).

Thoughts?

Andrew

(hmm, glossary?)