From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5065 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2002 14:42:21 -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 5035 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2002 14:42:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 14:42:20 -0000 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id 9321D106CC; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 10:40:29 -0400 (EDT) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15742.1117.465316.863673@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 07:42:00 -0000 To: Keith Seitz Cc: Elena Zannoni , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/MI testsuite] Add mi_runto In-Reply-To: References: <15741.22826.911452.93307@localhost.redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00149.txt.bz2 Keith Seitz writes: > On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Elena Zannoni wrote: > > > Same question as for the other patch. How does this interact with > > mi_run_to? > > Do we need both versions? > > Like mi_step/next_to, I think that I could have made a better decision to > implement this in terms of mi_run_to_helper, but there is still one > shortcoming, though: mi_run_to does not know how to start the target > running, while mi_runto does. > > If you'd like I can rewrite both of these patches using mi_run_to procs. > (I'll just assume that you'd like that and start on that. I don't really > know right now what I was thinking when I rewrote this all again.) > > Keith > Yes, please. Thanks. It will be easier to maintain if we have only one copy of these functions. Elena