From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7890 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2002 14:03:52 -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 7840 invoked from network); 8 Nov 2002 14:03:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 8 Nov 2002 14:03:48 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA8Df1w11887 for ; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 08:41:01 -0500 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA8E3lf31268; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 09:03:47 -0500 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (romulus-int.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.46]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA8E3ks01954; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 09:03:46 -0500 Received: by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 469) id B763AFF79; Fri, 8 Nov 2002 08:59:34 -0500 (EST) From: Elena Zannoni MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <15819.49989.112310.320542@localhost.redhat.com> Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2002 06:03:00 -0000 To: "J. Johnston" Cc: Elena Zannoni , Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Patch for gdb/mi 604 In-Reply-To: <3DCAFA89.C1C67B91@redhat.com> References: <3D9B3D4D.C0B57920@redhat.com> <15796.32490.200752.700605@localhost.redhat.com> <3DB487CB.7F21B13@redhat.com> <15797.24525.445748.958598@localhost.redhat.com> <3DB56C6F.7000108@redhat.com> <3DC9C05D.3A1B0809@redhat.com> <15818.63155.762935.993550@localhost.redhat.com> <3DCAFA89.C1C67B91@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00220.txt.bz2 J. Johnston writes: > > > PR gdb/604.Index: mi-main.c > > > =================================================================== > > > RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/mi/mi-main.c,v > > > retrieving revision 1.35 > > > diff -u -r1.35 mi-main.c > > > --- mi-main.c 23 Oct 2002 21:17:51 -0000 1.35 > > > +++ mi-main.c 7 Nov 2002 01:04:06 -0000 > > > @@ -1464,12 +1464,16 @@ > > > static void > > > mi_command_loop (int mi_version) > > > { > > > - /* HACK: Force stdout/stderr to point at the console. This avoids > > > - any potential side effects caused by legacy code that is still > > > - using the TUI / fputs_unfiltered_hook */ > > > - raw_stdout = stdio_fileopen (stdout); > > > - /* Route normal output through the MIx */ > > > - gdb_stdout = mi_console_file_new (raw_stdout, "~"); > > > + if (mi_version <= 1) > > > + { > > > + /* HACK: Force stdout/stderr to point at the console. This avoids > > > + any potential side effects caused by legacy code that is still > > > + using the TUI / fputs_unfiltered_hook */ > > > + raw_stdout = stdio_fileopen (stdout); > > > + /* Route normal output through the MIx */ > > > + gdb_stdout = mi_console_file_new (raw_stdout, "~"); > > > + } > > > + > > > /* Route error and log output through the MI */ > > > gdb_stderr = mi_console_file_new (raw_stdout, "&"); > > > gdb_stdlog = gdb_stderr; > > > > I don't understand why the code that handles this is in 2 different > > places depending on the interpreter version. I must be missing > > something, mi_init_ui is called with -i=mi2 and with -i=mi1. > > > > It's a timing issue. The old code used to set gdb_stdout up in mi_command_loop. By that > time, the initial message has already been issued and not "consolized". > Because I was attempting not to disturb the mi1 interface, I have to put > the code in the right spot for mi2 and above, and leave it in the wrong spot > for mi1 and below. Both places have to make the check for the mi level. > Oh right, yes, you are *not* changing this for mi1. > > > Index: lib/mi-support.exp > > > =================================================================== > > > RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/testsuite/lib/mi-support.exp,v > > > retrieving revision 1.17 > > > diff -u -r1.17 mi-support.exp > > > --- lib/mi-support.exp 10 Sep 2002 22:28:19 -0000 1.17 > > > +++ lib/mi-support.exp 7 Nov 2002 01:14:58 -0000 > > > @@ -123,7 +123,20 @@ > > > return 1; > > > } > > > gdb_expect { > > > - -re ".*$mi_gdb_prompt$" { > > > + -re "~\"GNU.*\r\n~\".*$mi_gdb_prompt$" { > > > + if { $MIFLAGS == "-i=mi1" } { > > > + perror "(mi startup) Got unexpected new mi prompt." > > > > I am wondering if it should use 'untested' instead of 'perror'. That's > > what the other cases do. > > > > I had this originally, but I figured that the tests should flag an error > if the wrong type of message is issued for either mi setting. Simply > placing them in the untested bucket would probably get them ignored. Yes, I see, untested doesn't print anything special. Can you add a comment to the testfile about this? Approved otherwise. thanks Elena