Re: [OB PATCH] Fix doc for -add-inferior

[Simon Marchi <simon dot marchi at ericsson dot com>]

On 13-06-03 09:17 PM, Yao Qi wrote:
> On 06/04/2013 06:13 AM, Simon Marchi wrote:
> > --- a/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
> > +++ b/gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo
> > @@ -34642,7 +34642,7 @@ Creates a new inferior (@pxref{Inferiors and 
> > Programs}).  The created
> >   inferior is not associated with any executable.  Such association may
> >   be established with the @samp{-file-exec-and-symbols} command
> >   (@pxref{GDB/MI File Commands}).  The command response has a single
> > -field, @samp{thread-group}, whose value is the identifier of the
> > +field, @samp{inferior}, whose value is the identifier of the
> >   thread group corresponding to the new inferior.
> >
> >   @subheading Example
> > @@ -34650,7 +34650,7 @@ thread group corresponding to the new inferior.
> >   @smallexample
> >   @value{GDBP}
> >   -add-inferior
> > -^done,thread-group="i3"
> > +^done,inferior="i3"
> >   @end smallexample
> >
> >   @subheading The @code{-interpreter-exec} Command
>
> Yes, there is an inconsistency between doc "thread-group" and code 
> "inferior".  This inconsistency was introduced by "Multiexec MI" patch 
> <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-02/msg00585.html>. Looks we 
> have to fix either the doc or the code.  In MI, I prefer 
> "thread-group" to "inferior".  When my MI notifications patches were 
> reviewed last year, I had an impression that "thread-group" is 
> preferred.  At least in MI notification, not sure it applies here or not.
I like "thread-group" better also. Since changing an existing MI 
interface could break applications that use it, what is the policy in 
GDB about changing things like this?