From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: Pierre Muller <muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [RFC/RFA] avoid spurious Watchpoint X output on cygwin native target.
Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 09:42:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020715164212.GA22578@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4.2.0.58.20020715174048.02a55688@ics.u-strasbg.fr>
On Mon, Jul 15, 2002 at 06:15:01PM +0200, Pierre Muller wrote:
>
> The following patch suppresses all
> spurious output when a DLL is loaded in native cygwin GDB.
>
> Its a RFC for two reasons:
>
> First reason:
> Question: Why do we currently get ouptut while loading a DLL
> while the safe_symbol_file_add does redefine gdb_stdout and
> gdbstderr to dummy output exactly to suppress all output?
>
> Answer: Because, despite gdb_stdout is redefined as a
> dummy file does noting with the strings it gets
> (and thus is a correct way of suppressing ouptut
> sent to gdb_stdout), the Watchpoint X...
> message is sent to uiout struct
> (see mention function in breakpoint.c source)
> The only question here is if a change of gdb_stdout should not
> also change the global uiout variable behavior.
> This could easily be achieved by replacing
> the stream field of the data field of ui_out struct into a
> '** ui_file' instead of a simple '*ui_file'.
>
> Is that complete nonsense, or does it seem logical to someone?
>
> (One argument for this is that you get the same unwanted output on
> loading of shared libraries on linux for instance ...)
>
>
> Here is the win32 specific patch and the associated changelog.
>
> 2nd reason: It does not free the uiout struct created because I didn't find
> how to free this cleanly.
This is an amusing coincidence, I discovered the same thing yesterday,
working on a different patch.
I believe that uiout should write to gdb_stdout no matter what instead
of saving a stream, and that things which wish to change where output
goes should redirect gdb_stdout. Your patch is definitely suspect,
because the current uiout might not be CLI; I don't know that it
matters for your case, although it definitely did for mine.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-07-15 16:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-07-15 9:31 Pierre Muller
2002-07-15 9:42 ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2002-07-16 7:24 ` Pierre Muller
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20020715164212.GA22578@nevyn.them.org \
--to=drow@mvista.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox