This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFA: "disconnect" command
Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 10:01:16AM -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
> >
> >> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
> >
> >>
> >> Daniel> On Mon, Jun 16, 2003 at 09:29:42AM -0400, Paul Koning wrote:
> >> >> >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
> >> >> ...
> >> Daniel> Refresher on this one: the patch adds a "disconnect" commad,
> >> Daniel> and implements it for remote targets. "disconnect" leaves
> >> Daniel> the target stopped, while "detach" usually resumes it.
> >> Daniel> Useful with kgdb, gdbserver, et cetera.
> >> >> Useful indeed. But there is nothing in the names "detach" and
> >> >> "disconnect" that suggests how they differ. Would it be possible
> >> >> to have command names that are suggestive of their action?
> >>
> >> Daniel> The last time I proposed this, we went back and forth for a
> >> Daniel> week on names and this was the best we could come up with.
> >> Daniel> Have you got a better suggestion?
> >>
> >> Nothing really promising. But how about doing this with an (optional)
> >> argument on the "detach" command, e.g., "detach stop" and "detach go"
> >> with the latter being the default?
> >
> >
> > That's similar to what I suggested originally, though it makes a little
> > more sense. If other people like it I'll switch, but I don't really
> > think it's better than disconnect.
>
> There was:
> connect / disconnect
> attach / detach
> as pairs.
Argh. But "connect" isn't really analogous to attach.
It's analogous to "target remote".