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: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2002 16:20:46 -0500
- Subject: Re: GDB Speak: `inferior' rather than `target'?
- References: <3DEBC4AB.9020706@redhat.com>
On Mon, Dec 02, 2002 at 03:38:03PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> Hello,
>
> 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 (...).
I've always used inferior only for a running target, generally a
ptraced one locally. But that's just my usage.
I'm with Kevin - I don't like either inferior or target. I'd suggest
punting to debugee but it's too cumbersome.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer