This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC] New GDB/MI command "-info-gdb-mi-command"
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, André Pönitz <andre dot poenitz at mathematik dot tu-chemnitz dot de>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2013 07:30:21 +0400
- Subject: Re: [RFC] New GDB/MI command "-info-gdb-mi-command"
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <8761rzknb4 dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com> <1384255504-28444-1-git-send-email-brobecker at adacore dot com> <20131112205229 dot GA7068 at klara dot mpi dot htwm dot de> <20131113021514 dot GG3481 at adacore dot com> <52851A04 dot 6040004 at redhat dot com> <52851E57 dot 30103 at redhat dot com> <87iovuwx7l dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com>
> Pedro> Just a POC. Of course, we'd have to go audit all MI "error" calls.
> It seems like a reasonable idea to me.
The idea of a specific and documented error code seems much more robust
Regarding invalid switches, we may have to extend the current proposal
to allow the command to specific what in the usage caused problem?
In my proposal, it was easy to extend by adding a "feature=[...]"
list to the output. Or maybe that's overkill? Or use list-features
for that instead?
I'd like us to decide to something I can go and implement. Either way,
I think we can start by concentrating with the initial goal, which is
to determine whether a command exists or not. People seem to have reacted
more positively to the idea of try-and-fallback approach, shall we go
with Pedro's idea (without the "invalid switch"/"usage" part)?