RE: [OB PATCH] Fix doc for -add-inferior

[Marc Khouzam <marc dot khouzam at ericsson dot com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org 
> [mailto:gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Pedro Alves
> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 10:37 AM
> To: Yao Qi
> Cc: Simon Marchi; GDB Patches
> Subject: Re: [OB PATCH] Fix doc for -add-inferior
> 
> On 06/04/2013 02:58 PM, Yao Qi wrote:
> > On 06/04/2013 09:31 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
> >> I like "thread-group" better also. Since changing an existing MI
> >> interface could break applications that use it, what is 
> the policy in
> >> GDB about changing things like this?
> > 
> > In general, we can't change the existing interface.  
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> > However, this change fixes the inconsistency between code 
> and doc, and it should be fine to change the code to comply 
> with the doc, IMO.
> 
> That's unfortunately not really a valid justification, so I 
> can't agree with that.
> Valid justifications would be "we don't need to care that 
> frontends break
> because ..." (e.g., "this never worked as is"), or
> "frontends won't break because ...".
> Any existing frontend that is using -add-inferior will be expecting to
> see "inferior" there in order to extract the inferior id.  
> It's quite natural
> that other frontends authors hadn't even noticed the 'reality 
> vs documentation'
> divergence, as -add-inferior resulting in "inferior" borders on
> so-obvious-who-needs-to-check-docs-anyway output.  IMNSHO, 
> it's better to
> just document the over-3-year-old current behavior.

Pedro's right, Eclipse expects 'inferior'.  I think that changing
that would just be asking for trouble.

Thanks

Marc