From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21803 invoked by alias); 2 Dec 2002 20:38:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 21795 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2002 20:38:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Dec 2002 20:38:10 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 67DED3E4B for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 15:38:03 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3DEBC4AB.9020706@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 12:38:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: GDB Speak: `inferior' rather than `target'? Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00025.txt.bz2 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?)