Re: [rfc] "reset" / "create-inferior" commands

[Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>]

> Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 15:28:11 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
> 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.

This sounds like a command I've always wanted, but I don't associate
it at all with "reset".  "create-inferior" might be more appropriate,
but I don't think it'll make sense to people who don't know GDB's
internals.  How about "setup"?  Sounds to me like that's what this
command will do; setting up a new process to be debugged.

Mark