Re: [PATCH, doc RFA] New option -B: simplify running gdb from build directory

[Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>]

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 10:54 AM, Doug Evans <dje@google.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>>> Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2014 09:37:28 -0800
>>> From: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
>>> Cc: gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> > > From: Doug Evans <dje@google.com>
>>> > > Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2014 13:41:21 -0800
>>> > >
>>> > > I believe I've addressed Eli's comments,
>>> > > [ref: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2013-12/msg00969.html]
>>> >
>>> > No, I don't think you have.
>>>
>>> That's not much to go on. :-)
>>
>> "Address the comments" in my book means to make changes to accommodate
>> those comments.  In contrast, what you did was express your
>> disagreement with my comments.  That doesn't seem to fit the bill.
>
> Ah.  Definition mismatch..
> I'll try to remember to phrase "Address the comments" differently next time.
> Thanks.

Hi. I'm not sure where this patch stands.
I have OK for the documentation parts and I am a Global Maintainer.

I just want to stop having to type --data-directory all the time when
I run gdb under gdb in emacs (without doing hacks like having a
special emacs command just for debugging gdb).  It's unlikely ISTM the
community is going to agree on a heuristic for determining whether gdb
is being run from the build directory any time soon, so let's just let
it go for now.  Typing "./gdb -B" is fine by me.  I can think of
alternatives (eg., name the binary in the build directory as xgdb and
have gdb check argv[0]) but I prefer -B.