|RE: [cdt-dev] Support for "target-detach" and "target-disconnect"|
> -----Original Message----- > From: cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:cdt-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mikhail Khodjaiants > Sent: April-15-10 12:58 PM > To: cdt-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [cdt-dev] Support for "target-detach" and > "target-disconnect" > > > > My point was that having 'disconnect' on the toolbar, for GDB, > > doesn't not seem as useful as having 'detach'. > > Are we really forced to have GDB's 'disconnect' on the toolbar, > > just because the JDT/platform has named it 'disconnect'. > > > > Is that the only reason that we don't instead have GDB's > > disconnect in the view menu? > > > I agree. But "Disconnect" is contributed by the platform and has been > there from the very beginning. I don't think we will be able > to convince > the platform team to remove it from the toolbar. But it's just the name 'disconnect' that is the problem. wouldn't be ok to have it be a 'disconnect' for JDT, but a 'detach' for CDT? The reason that motivates your change is, as per your first email: "Currently both GDB-based implementations use the "Disconnect" action of the Debug view for sending the "detach" command to GDB. This is misleading because there is the "disconnect" command in GDB."" Which is just the naming of the command, no? I'm having trouble accepting that we are going to make this change because the names don't match. Did users of CDT complain about the situation?
Back to the top