This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [MI] Duplicate --thread-group flag not detected
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: Marc Khouzam <marc dot khouzam at ericsson dot com>, "'gdb-patches\ at sourceware dot org'" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Dec 2010 09:39:54 -0700
- Subject: Re: [MI] Duplicate --thread-group flag not detected
- References: <F7CE05678329534C957159168FA70DEC572E7598F3@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <20101126163842.GJ2634@adacore.com>
>>>>> "Joel" == Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com> writes:
>> 2010-11-25 Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@ericsson.com>
>>
>> * mi/mi-parse.c (mi_parse): Missing else.
Joel> Normally, the man to approve this is Vladimir, so I can't approve, but
Joel> I had a quick look anyway.
I think in this case the patch is simple and obvious enough that we can
go forward without waiting.
What do you think of that?
Joel> Another remark: It looks like the use of the --all/--thread-group/--thread
Joel> options with the -mi-break command is not documented? I could only see
Joel> them documented with commands such as -exec-continue....
This code seems weird to me too. I suppose it is needed until the
transition to "new" style argv commands is completed.
I was curious about this -- is this sort of transition something people
would want to see done? Would it help MI users? (It would help Python
if we ever implemented the automatic MI wrapping... but I am not sure
whether we really want to do that.)
>From what I can see there are 14 such commands.
Joel> Last comment: A small test would be nice...
I agree.
Tom