From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27176 invoked by alias); 2 Dec 2002 21:30:24 -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 27077 invoked from network); 2 Dec 2002 21:30:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 2 Dec 2002 21:30:21 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7D1E3E4B; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 16:30:14 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3DEBD0E6.9060706@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 13:30:00 -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: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: GDB Speak: `inferior' rather than `target'? References: <3DEBC4AB.9020706@redhat.com> <20021202212046.GA23744@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00029.txt.bz2 > On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 03:38:03PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> 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 (...). > > > I've always used inferior only for a running target, generally a > ptraced one locally. But that's just my usage. > > I'm with Kevin - I don't like either inferior or target. I'd suggest > punting to debugee but it's too cumbersome. Not being in common use doesn't rule out GDB adopting it. That is what good documentation (and a glosary) is for :-) (Debug engineers aren't exactly lying about on the ground so I'd not be suprized if its use wasn't common. Perhaphs other debugers have other terms. (debugee makes me cringe :-) Andrew