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

[Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>]

On 06/04/2013 06:29 PM, Marc Khouzam wrote:
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org 
>> [mailto:gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org] On Behalf Of Pedro Alves
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 04, 2013 10:37 AM
>> To: Yao Qi
>> Cc: Simon Marchi; GDB Patches
>> Subject: Re: [OB PATCH] Fix doc for -add-inferior
>>
>> On 06/04/2013 02:58 PM, Yao Qi wrote:
>>> On 06/04/2013 09:31 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> In general, we can't change the existing interface.  
>>
>> Agreed.
>>
>>> However, this change fixes the inconsistency between code 
>> and doc, and it should be fine to change the code to comply 
>> with the doc, IMO.
>>
>> That's unfortunately not really a valid justification, so I 
>> can't agree with that.
>> Valid justifications would be "we don't need to care that 
>> frontends break
>> because ..." (e.g., "this never worked as is"), or
>> "frontends won't break because ...".
>> Any existing frontend that is using -add-inferior will be expecting to
>> see "inferior" there in order to extract the inferior id.  
>> It's quite natural
>> that other frontends authors hadn't even noticed the 'reality 
>> vs documentation'
>> divergence, as -add-inferior resulting in "inferior" borders on
>> so-obvious-who-needs-to-check-docs-anyway output.  IMNSHO, 
>> it's better to
>> just document the over-3-year-old current behavior.
> 
> Pedro's right, Eclipse expects 'inferior'.  I think that changing
> that would just be asking for trouble.

Thanks for confirming.  Could you check it in?  It has
about zero copyrightable content (anyone writing a doc fix for this
would end up with the same exact patch), so there's really no need
to wait for paperwork for this one.

Thanks,
-- 
Pedro Alves