Re: [PATCH] implements MI "-file-list-exec-sections" (updated)

[Stefan Weyergraf <stefan at weyergraf dot de>]

> > diff -u -3 -p -r1.202 gdb.texinfo
> > --- doc/gdb.texinfo	28 Mar 2004 12:22:55 -0000	1.202
> > +++ doc/gdb.texinfo	22 Apr 2004 21:44:09 -0000
> > @@ -14574,7 +14574,7 @@ Elena Zannoni.
> >
> >  @item @var{mi-command} @expansion{}
> >  @code{[ @var{token} ] "-" @var{operation} ( " " @var{option} )*
> > -@code{[} " --" @code{]} ( " " @var{parameter} )* @var{nl}}
> > +[ " --" ] ( " " @var{parameter} )* @var{nl}}
[...]
> > -@code{"&" @var{c-string}}
> > +@code{"&" @var{c-string} @var{nl}}
> >
> >  @item @var{nl} @expansion{}
> >  @code{CR | CR-LF}
>
> This part all looks correct, can you just post it separatly with a
> ChangeLog.
OK

> > -static void core_files_info (struct target_ops *);
> > +static void core_files_info (struct target_ops *, struct ui_out *);
>
> Again, just this part (through out) is all ok, can you please post it.
I'm not sure what exactly you mean here.
Do you mean that the change to the *_info(...) _interface_ is all ok?
Or the interface plus implementation (main work being in exec_info(), the
others (core, go32, hpux, child, monitor, etc..) considered as follow-ups)?
Or the changes to mi/cmd-file.cc and mi/mi-cmds.cc?
Or all 3? (which I hope)

> Now the fun bit ...
>
> You'll have noticed I sent out an e-mail asking about ``inferior vs
> target'', lets ignore that question for this output...
>
> > +@smallexample
> > +(@value{GDBP})
> > +123-file-list-exec-sections
> > +~"Symbols from \"/var/home/ouk/projects/ht20/testproject/test-g\".\n"
> > +123^done,targets=[
>
> List of targets reflecting the target stack, nice.
>
> {target-type-long="Local exec file",target-type-short="exec",
>
> here ``target-'' is implied, so would just:
>
> 	short-name=
> 	long-name=
> 	entry-point=
>
> be better?
Yes, I agree this is be better.

>
> > +filename="/var/home/ouk/projects/ht20/testproject/test-g",file-type="elf
> >32-i386", +target-entrypoint="0x08048380",sections=[
>
> List of sections, again nice.
>
> > +{start-address="0x08048134",end-address="0x08048147",section-name=".inte
> >rp"},
[...]
> >},
> > +{start-address="0x0804970c",end-address="0x08049710",section-name=".bss"
> >}]}] +(@value{GDBP})
> > +@end smallexample
>
> I like it.  But lets get the other changes in first.
Are you really only talking about the doc-changes here? If that's true and
(thus) you are agreeing to my main (ie. gdb/mi source code) changes, why
would we want to wait here?

Thanks,
Stefan