From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27305 invoked by alias); 9 Aug 2005 17:32:10 -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 27291 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Aug 2005 17:32:05 -0000 Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Tue, 09 Aug 2005 17:32:05 +0000 Received: from farnswood.snap.net.nz (p171-tnt1.snap.net.nz [202.124.110.171]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id CDCAE684EF1; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 15:53:35 +1200 (NZST) Received: by farnswood.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 501) id 8702062A99; Tue, 9 Aug 2005 04:50:08 +0100 (BST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17144.10222.795354.392025@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 17:52:00 -0000 To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: MI output during program execution In-Reply-To: References: <17142.56731.941946.838268@farnswood.snap.net.nz> X-SW-Source: 2005-08/txt/msg00099.txt.bz2 > I'm a bit nervous about this literal testing of certain commands: why > not allow _any_ CLI commands to be supported in this way? I > understand that you were trying to mention every command that runs the > inferior, but the implication is that we will need to remember to add > to this list any new command that has similar effects. That sounds > like a PITA; could a more general solution be devised? Indeed. I missed out "continue" for a start. Not all the CLI commands have direct MI counterparts. For commands that run the inferior the correspondence is particular clear e.g. enum mi_cmd_result mi_cmd_exec_run (char *args, int from_tty) { /* FIXME: Should call a libgdb function, not a cli wrapper */ return mi_execute_async_cli_command ("run", args, from_tty); } i.e they are just wrappers for the CLI command. > But I'm afraid that I'm somehow missing something, so could you please > elaborate on the design of the solution you propose? It's just another fix and not a general solution. Reading the comments for MI there are already many such fixes (mi_execute_async_cli_command is an example). That doesn't justify further fixes, of course, and something more general would clearly be better but beyond my current scope. Nick