This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: pathmap or dir command on drugs
- To: David Taylor <taylor at cygnus dot com>
- Subject: Re: pathmap or dir command on drugs
- From: Fernando Nasser <fnasser at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Mon, 06 Nov 2000 21:48:22 +0000
- CC: gdb at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- Organization: Red Hat Canada Ltd. - Toronto
- References: <200011062125.QAA00561@texas.cygnus.com>
David Taylor wrote:
>
> One camp, by comparison with breakpoints and displays, is:
>
> pathmap <from-prefix> <to-prefix>
> show pathmaps <optional-list>
> delete pathmaps <optional-list>
>
> The other camp is
>
> pathmap add <from-prefix> <to-prefix>
> pathmap list <optional-list>
> pathmap delete <optional-list>
>
I vote for the second one for a few reasons:
1) I think displays and breakpoints are objects related to the
inferior program execution. Let's say they are of the Exec class.
This "pathmap" facility is related to the source level debugging
capabilities of gdb, lets say they are from the "Symbol" class.
I would rather not mix.
2) These commands that have a show without a set are confusing (if we
can say "show pathmap" we would expect to be able to say "set pathmap").
I know that we already have may of those, but I would rather not add one
more.
3) The second option keeps this feature completely independent and
completely out of the way of someone who doesn't want to map paths.
It doesn't show in help delete, as a show command option. It is
neatly separated.
But people may have arguments to the first option as well, so I will wait
to see what the general preference is.
As to the functionality, it is not my call, but I find it an interesting
to have around. I have the feeling that I may have used this if it existed
before.
P.S.: I guess one can say "pathmap delete all", right?
(or "delete pathmap all")
--
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat Canada Ltd. E-Mail: fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario M4P 2C9