This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch 2/2+rfc+doc] Install gcore by default (+new man page)
- From: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Tue, 09 Apr 2013 15:26:06 +0100
- Subject: Re: [patch 2/2+rfc+doc] Install gcore by default (+new man page)
- References: <20130407185443 dot GB15389 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net> <83r4ilawlx dot fsf at gnu dot org> <20130408172841 dot GA28868 at host2 dot jankratochvil dot net> <87hajgua2o dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com>
On 04/08/2013 07:54 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Kratochvil <jan.kratochvil@redhat.com> writes:
>
> Jan> Leaving it pending for RFC if gcore should be installed at all
>
> I think it should be, because it is useful and "why not?".
A couple points to consider:
- Should we install it on hosts/builds that don't support gcore
with the native target?
- Should we install it on mingw hosts (where there'll be
no shell capable of running the script available)?
>
> Jan> and also if
> Jan> current
> Jan> src/gdb/gcore.in + src/gdb/gcore
> Jan> should not be called for example like before
> Jan> src/gdb/gdb_gcore.sh.in + src/gdb/gdb_gcore.sh
>
> I like your new naming.
Me too.
>
> Jan> <tab>-completion) or if it should not be called with .sh as
> Jan> src/gdb/gcore.sh.in + src/gdb/gcore.sh
> Jan> although I do not see a reason for it, there are some *.sh files but those are
> Jan> not installed.
>
> I think having ".sh" on an installed script is a mistake.
> For one thing, if you change the implementation of the command then you
> get confusion -- either the ".sh" is actively wrong, or you have to change
> the name.
Definitely agreed.
--
Pedro Alves