From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18672 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2008 00:15:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 18662 invoked by uid 22791); 28 Jun 2008 00:15:16 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.25) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:14:49 +0000 Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (155.62.255.123.dynamic.snap.net.nz [123.255.62.155]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8F1C63DA951; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:14:41 +1200 (NZST) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 114E18FC6D; Sat, 28 Jun 2008 12:14:28 +1200 (NZST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18533.33379.962529.54094@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Sat, 28 Jun 2008 05:49:00 -0000 To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [MI/RFC] Emit ^running via observer. In-Reply-To: <200806270829.53537.vladimir@codesourcery.com> References: <200806140108.24047.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200806261958.06374.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <18532.12506.972674.635614@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <200806270829.53537.vladimir@codesourcery.com> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.2.50.3 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-06/txt/msg00526.txt.bz2 > > mi-async.exp is a test for async mode, so is not expected to pass in sync > > mode. > > That's the question -- what about this test is specific to async mode? Async mode decouples the output from the input. This allows a CLI command that executes the inferior to (indirectly) generate MI output. That's why I was interested in async mode and that's what this test is for. The work has actually been done for more general reasons, such as non-stop mode. I think the MI output is just a fortunate side-effect. >... > > It's not a problem if async mode becomes the default, which is my > > understanding. > > Not mine, unfortunately. We can't even make all target always have at least > one element in thread list -- which is much simpler change. Maybe that's a requirement of non-stop mode but I'm not sure that this is relevant here, i.e. with just async mode. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob