This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: GDB Speak: `inferior' rather than `target'?
- From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb at redhat dot com>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>, gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 13:43:43 -0700
- Subject: Re: GDB Speak: `inferior' rather than `target'?
- References: <3DEBC4AB.9020706@redhat.com>
On Dec 2, 3:38pm, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> In trying to correctly and clearly word some gdb comments (and yes ok,
> and internal doco), I'm left wondering if we should `newspeak' some
> terminology here and use the word `inferior' instead of `target'.
>
> The problem with `target' is that it is totally overloaded. The
> configuration target, the running target the target architecture, ....
>
> Hence, when refering to an instance of the program being debugged, the
> word `inferior' should be used. Of course, this would mean that `core'
> becomes an inferior (...).
>
> Thoughts?
I may be wrong, but it's my impression that the use of the word
`inferior' to describe an instance of the program being debugged is
unique to GDB. That said, I don't think that the word `target' is
appropriate either. I wish we could come up with some other term
altogether...
Kevin