Re: RFC: GDB as a loader 3/3: --eval-command option

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: GDB as a loader 3/3: --eval-command option

Andrew Stubbs-2
Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> The attached patch implements a new option --eval-command (-ex for
> short) which works similarly to the --command option except that it
> passes the command itself, rather than a file name containing commands.

May I commit this and the doc patch, please?

Andrew Stubbs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: GDB as a loader 3/3: --eval-command option

Daniel Jacobowitz-2
On Fri, Nov 04, 2005 at 11:52:39AM +0000, Andrew STUBBS wrote:
> Andrew Stubbs wrote:
> >Hi all,
> >
> >The attached patch implements a new option --eval-command (-ex for
> >short) which works similarly to the --command option except that it
> >passes the command itself, rather than a file name containing commands.
>
> May I commit this and the doc patch, please?

The code patch is OK with me (wish I'd done this instead of messing
around with mktemp last month).  I believe Eli is OK with your revised
documentation, but please give him a chance to confirm that before you
commit.

Should this, or the others, be in NEWS?

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: GDB as a loader 3/3: --eval-command option

Eli Zaretskii
> Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 21:50:59 -0500
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <[hidden email]>
> Cc: [hidden email]
>
> I believe Eli is OK with your revised documentation, but please give
> him a chance to confirm that before you commit.

Yes, the final version of the doc patch in
http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2005-10/msg00187.html is okay with me.

> Should this, or the others, be in NEWS?

Good point.  Yes, I think all the new command-line options should be
mentioned in NEWS.  Andrew, could you please write that up and post
here for approval?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: GDB as a loader 3/3: --eval-command option

Andrew Stubbs-2
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>I believe Eli is OK with your revised documentation, but please give
>>him a chance to confirm that before you commit.
>
>
> Yes, the final version of the doc patch in
> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2005-10/msg00187.html is okay with me.

Thanks. I have now committed this.

Andrew Stubbs
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: GDB as a loader 3/3: --eval-command option

Andrew Stubbs-2
In reply to this post by Eli Zaretskii
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>Should this, or the others, be in NEWS?
>
>
> Good point.  Yes, I think all the new command-line options should be
> mentioned in NEWS.  Andrew, could you please write that up and post
> here for approval?

On looking at the NEWS files more closely I am a little uncertain what
to do about the mainline file. The attached patch should do fine for the
6.4 branch however (I don't think this needs any more, does it?).

The mainline does not contain anything about 6.4 yet. Presumably this
will be merged across when the 6.4 stuff is completed?

Should I add a 6.5 section for my changes?

Andrew Stubbs

2005-11-07  Andrew Stubbs  <[hidden email]>

        * NEWS: Add --batch-silent option.

--- src6.4.orig/NEWS 2005-11-07 14:12:02.000000000 +0000
+++ src6.4/NEWS 2005-11-07 14:12:08.000000000 +0000
@@ -12,6 +12,10 @@ OpenBSD/mips64 mips64-*-openbsd*
 
 Morpho Technologies ms1 ms1-elf
 
+* New command line options
+
+--batch-silent As for --batch, but totally silent.
+
 * Deprecated commands removed
 
 The following commands, that were deprecated in 2000, have been
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: GDB as a loader 3/3: --eval-command option

Joel Brobecker
> On looking at the NEWS files more closely I am a little uncertain what
> to do about the mainline file. The attached patch should do fine for the
> 6.4 branch however (I don't think this needs any more, does it?).
>
> The mainline does not contain anything about 6.4 yet. Presumably this
> will be merged across when the 6.4 stuff is completed?
>
> Should I add a 6.5 section for my changes?

Indeed, I think you need to add a new section like this:

*** Changes since GDB 6.4

--
Joel
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: GDB as a loader 3/3: --eval-command option

Andrew Stubbs-2
Joel Brobecker wrote:
> Indeed, I think you need to add a new section like this:
>
> *** Changes since GDB 6.4

OK, how about the attached? There's one for the branch and one for mainline.

I added the new stuff above the deprecated stuff rather than just
appeanding it to the end.

Andrew Stubbs

2005-11-07  Andrew Stubbs  <[hidden email]>

        * NEWS: Change 'since 6.3' to 'in 6.4' and add --batch-silent option.
        Add 'since 6.4' section with --return-child-result and --eval-command
        options.

Index: src/gdb/NEWS
===================================================================
--- src.orig/gdb/NEWS 2005-11-07 17:37:18.000000000 +0000
+++ src/gdb/NEWS 2005-11-07 17:45:23.000000000 +0000
@@ -1,7 +1,18 @@
  What has changed in GDB?
      (Organized release by release)
 
-*** Changes since GDB 6.3
+*** Changes since GDB 6.4
+
+* New command line options
+
+--return-child-result The debugger will exist with the same value
+ the child (debugged) program exited with.
+--eval-command COMMAND, -ex COMMAND
+ Execute a single GDB CLI command. This may be
+ specified multiple times and in conjunction
+ with the --command (-x) option.
+
+*** Changes in GDB 6.4
 
 * New native configurations
 
@@ -12,6 +23,10 @@ OpenBSD/mips64 mips64-*-openbsd*
 
 Morpho Technologies ms1 ms1-elf
 
+* New command line options
+
+--batch-silent                 As for --batch, but totally silent.
+
 * Deprecated commands removed
 
 The following commands, that were deprecated in 2000, have been

2005-11-07  Andrew Stubbs  <[hidden email]>

        * NEWS: Add --batch-silent option.

Index: src6.4/NEWS
===================================================================
--- src6.4.orig/NEWS 2005-11-07 14:12:02.000000000 +0000
+++ src6.4/NEWS 2005-11-07 14:12:08.000000000 +0000
@@ -12,6 +12,10 @@ OpenBSD/mips64 mips64-*-openbsd*
 
 Morpho Technologies ms1 ms1-elf
 
+* New command line options
+
+--batch-silent As for --batch, but totally silent.
+
 * Deprecated commands removed
 
 The following commands, that were deprecated in 2000, have been
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: GDB as a loader 3/3: --eval-command option

Eli Zaretskii
In reply to this post by Andrew Stubbs-2
> Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 14:13:32 +0000
> From: Andrew STUBBS <[hidden email]>
> Cc: [hidden email]
>
> On looking at the NEWS files more closely I am a little uncertain what
> to do about the mainline file. The attached patch should do fine for the
> 6.4 branch however (I don't think this needs any more, does it?).

It's fine.

> The mainline does not contain anything about 6.4 yet. Presumably this
> will be merged across when the 6.4 stuff is completed?

Any patches that are committed to the branch and mainline, should be
mentioned in mainline's NEWS as well.

> Should I add a 6.5 section for my changes?

Only if we decide not to commit them to the branch as well.
Personally, I don't see why not have them in 6.4, they cannot possibly
harm anything.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: GDB as a loader 3/3: --eval-command option

Eli Zaretskii
In reply to this post by Andrew Stubbs-2
> Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 18:03:44 +0000
> From: Andrew STUBBS <[hidden email]>
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <[hidden email]>, [hidden email]
>
> Joel Brobecker wrote:
> > Indeed, I think you need to add a new section like this:
> >
> > *** Changes since GDB 6.4
>
> OK, how about the attached? There's one for the branch and one for mainline.

Fine with me.  Thanks.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: GDB as a loader 3/3: --eval-command option

Andrew Stubbs-2
In reply to this post by Eli Zaretskii
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>Should I add a 6.5 section for my changes?
>
>
> Only if we decide not to commit them to the branch as well.
> Personally, I don't see why not have them in 6.4, they cannot possibly
> harm anything.

Anybody object to my putting --return-child-result (including the header
file update) and --eval-command into 6.4?

Anybody else in favour?

Andrew


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: GDB as a loader 3/3: --eval-command option

Daniel Jacobowitz-2
On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:02:07AM +0000, Andrew STUBBS wrote:

> Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> >>Should I add a 6.5 section for my changes?
> >
> >
> >Only if we decide not to commit them to the branch as well.
> >Personally, I don't see why not have them in 6.4, they cannot possibly
> >harm anything.
>
> Anybody object to my putting --return-child-result (including the header
> file update) and --eval-command into 6.4?
>
> Anybody else in favour?

Sounds reasonable to me.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: GDB as a loader 3/3: --eval-command option

Andrew Stubbs-2
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 08, 2005 at 11:02:07AM +0000, Andrew STUBBS wrote:
>
>>Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>>
>>>>Should I add a 6.5 section for my changes?
>>>
>>>
>>>Only if we decide not to commit them to the branch as well.
>>>Personally, I don't see why not have them in 6.4, they cannot possibly
>>>harm anything.
>>
>>Anybody object to my putting --return-child-result (including the header
>>file update) and --eval-command into 6.4?
>>
>>Anybody else in favour?
>
>
> Sounds reasonable to me.
>

Is that an 'OK, go ahead', or just part of the discussion?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFC: GDB as a loader 3/3: --eval-command option

Andrew Stubbs-2
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Please go ahead.

Thanks, done.

Andrew Stubbs