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

Mark Kettenis
2006-11-01T22:56:29Z

> 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