On 05/10/2012 07:42 PM, Stan Shebs wrote:
On 5/10/12 11:18 AM, Pedro Alves wrote:
On 05/10/2012 07:12 PM, Stan Shebs wrote:
They're waiting for the GDB bits (including the MI patch which is in my queue) to become available, which is why I want to get this resolved one way or another. It's a little ironic that Eclipse folks, who don't care about command-line syntax, are being blocked on a discussion of command-line syntax. :-)
If everybody is tired of the issue, I'll just make a decision; things can always be changed later.
What kind of decision? What would exactly be the alternative?
To pick one of "info os" and "info linux". I don't think there are many other credible alternatives; the subcommand should be a single
short word, with the rest of the work to be done by subsubcommands and/or arguments. "info unix" or "info posix" would qualify, but
historically we've tended to avoid using those terms in GDB commands, and one could argue that they have the
same vagueness/overloading issue that "os" does.
Frankly, this reads as a misunderstanding of all whole thing to me. Just
picking out a name in isolation of the grand scheme doesn't make sense.
How would "info linux" be implemented? How would be backend know you're
requesting linux specific data? What would make "info linux" against a
Windows target return error or nothing, instead of returning Windows
specific tables? What's the point in making "linux" be in the command
name if the frontend is completely agnostic, by design, to what is beneath
the command?
IOW, renaming the command means implementing something completely different.