From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14081 invoked by alias); 1 Nov 2006 20:28:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 14073 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Nov 2006 20:28:19 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:28:12 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1GfMh1-0005SR-6M for gdb@sourceware.org; Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:28:11 -0500 Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:28:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: [rfc] "reset" / "create-inferior" commands Message-ID: <20061101202811.GA20484@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) 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/msg00002.txt.bz2 Some time ago I asked about name choices for a command which would create a new process, or restart an existing process, without running it. I've already done the GDB internals work for such a command; the only reason I haven't added one already is that I couldn't come up with a name. Here's what it should do: - When doing native debugging, it should fork and exec the program, and run until the command shell execs the real program (if necessary). - When connected to a remote embedded board, it should send the "restart" packet. That corresponds in both cases to calling target_create_inferior but not proceed. I haven't seen a good name which works for both scenarios. The best idea so far comes from Paul Brook - if we call the new command "reset", it's accurate for boards, and not terribly awkward for native processes. Alternatively, we could add two names for the command which did the same thing ("create-inferior" or "create-process" as an alias for "reset"). [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.] Any comments on this name? I keep wanting the command, so I'd like to find an acceptable name, and then I can go ahead and implement it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery