From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11094 invoked by alias); 27 Mar 2005 04:42:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 11040 invoked from network); 27 Mar 2005 04:42:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 27 Mar 2005 04:42:36 -0000 Received: from zaretski (IGLD-83-130-253-83.inter.net.il [83.130.253.83]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.6-GR) with ESMTP id EAF85100 (AUTH halo1); Sun, 27 Mar 2005 06:42:34 +0200 (IST) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2005 04:42:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Message-ID: <01c53287$Blat.v2.4$180ff580@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 In-reply-to: <20050327035529.GA581@white> (message from Bob Rossi on Sat, 26 Mar 2005 22:55:29 -0500) Subject: Re: [mi] organize possible exec async mi oc command reasons Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20050324154602.GA10558@white> <01c530ab$Blat.v2.4$de96e8e0@zahav.net.il> <20050324210231.GA10808@white> <01c531ef$Blat.v2.4$d2dbeba0@zahav.net.il> <01c53207$Blat.v2.4$edd75800@zahav.net.il> <20050327035529.GA581@white> X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00358.txt.bz2 > Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 22:55:29 -0500 > From: Bob Rossi > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > Thanks for all the excellent suggestions, I can see how this is much > much nicer than what I had. There is probably still room for improving, > what do you think? It's fine now, I have only one minor comment, see below. > After this doco and patch is approved, I'm going to enumerate the other > 2 case's, status-async-output and notify-async-output. Thanks. > Also, For each item, I could add the MI commands that could be done to get the > response described. Like, -exec-finish produces function-finished. That would be good, I think. > However, the user won't know when you get 'read-watchpoint-trigger'. > What do you think? and if so, how would that fit into this description? > Another table perhaps? Why not mention that with each @item in the table you already added? That is, under "@item function-finished" mention -exec-finish. > +@item function-finished > +An -exec-finish or similar CLI command was accomplished. CLI commands such as -exec-finish should be in @code. Otherwise, this can go in (provided that the code patch was approved). Thanks.