From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11872 invoked by alias); 31 May 2002 00:37:45 -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 11825 invoked from network); 31 May 2002 00:37:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 May 2002 00:37:43 -0000 Received: from theotherone.redhat-remotie.org (remus.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.252]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id RAA01341 for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 17:37:42 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost.fidalgo.net [127.0.0.1]) by theotherone.redhat-remotie.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 25FF5BB47D for ; Thu, 30 May 2002 17:38:08 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:37:00 -0000 From: Don Howard X-X-Sender: To: Subject: Re: Redefining built-in commands. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00334.txt.bz2 On Thu, 30 May 2002, Don Howard wrote: > > > I've run across a bug involving redefinition of built-in commands: > > If the command has an alias, the alias is not redefined. Instead, the > alias is left in an inconsistent state and causes a crash when invoked. > > Should gdb allow users to redefine built-in commands? If so, should the > orignial alias continue to behave like the original built-in, or should > it's behavior be modified also? > An example: (gdb) define next Really redefine built-in command "next"? (y or n) y Type commands for definition of "next". End with a line saying just "end". >echo A silly example - redefine next\n >end (gdb) next A silly example - redefine next (gdb) n Segmentation fault -- dhoward@redhat.com gdb engineering