From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-9856-listarch-gdb=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 24445 invoked by alias); 12 Aug 2002 22:47:08 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 24434 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2002 22:47:06 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Aug 2002 22:47:06 -0000
Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 593FF3CFC; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 18:47:05 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <3D583AE9.7020502@ges.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 15:47:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020810
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Keith Seitz <keiths@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [Interpeters] "set interpreter" useful?
References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0208121458530.9325-100000@valrhona.uglyboxes.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00114.txt.bz2

> Hi,
> 
> I've been testing the interpreter stuff with which I've been working on 
> and off for a little while, and I have to ask: does anyone think it will 
> be useful for someone to switch interpreters?
> 
> $ gdb -nw -nx -q
> (gdb) set interpeter mi
> (gdb) 
> 
> OR
> 
> $ gdb -nx -i=mi -q
> (gdb) 
> -interpreter-set console
> (gdb) 
> 
> This is obviously a real nightmare to get working properly. I won't even 
> mention what kind of havoc this could cause if someone using an MI-based 
> UI did something like:
> 
> -interpreter-exec console "set interpreter console"
> 
> Would anyone care if I ripped out the ability to change interpreters on 
> the fly? (I'm not going to touch interpreter-exec, just "set 
> intepreter"/"-interpreter-set".

Yes (how can you rip out something that was never fully 
approved/committed? :-)

Sounds like you've come up with a bit of doco that should go with 
-interpreter-exec, explaining why ``-interpreter-set'' would be a bad 
move :-)

Andrew