From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22045 invoked by alias); 10 Feb 2005 19:58:04 -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 21965 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2005 19:57:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao04.cox.net) (68.230.240.35) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 10 Feb 2005 19:57:52 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao04.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-117-20041022) with ESMTP id <20050210195748.IZJK23636.lakermmtao04.cox.net@white>; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:57:48 -0500 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CzKRi-0007Xd-00; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:57:50 -0500 Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:34:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MI testsuite improvements Message-ID: <20050210195749.GA28864@white> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20050210135229.GB28065@white> <420B8026.2060006@gnu.org> <20050210160954.GA28209@white> <420B9DEC.3060501@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <420B9DEC.3060501@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00096.txt.bz2 On Thu, Feb 10, 2005 at 12:46:20PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >>I'm ok with this, as I think you noted elsewhere, this has become the > >>defacto standard. Would you be interested in documenting this? > > > > > >Sure, where thought? > > I've no idea. > > >>The change should be applied to just mi-* and not mi2-*, and should only > >>accept plain text on that PTY. @... output on the PTY should be > >>rejected ("in theory" so should anything on GDB's pty). > > > > > >Just curious, why are you interested in only applying changes to mi-* and > >not to mi2-*? > > We have effectively changed the interface (or its expected use). New > code should use/expect the PTY, old code should use/expect the @... > mechanism. OO, I see, are you saying the mi-* tests will become the new ones, and the mi2-* are frozen for the mi2-* development cycle? In order to do this for only the new tests, I'll have to add a new parameter to mi_gdb_start to tell it to either open or not open a pty for the inferior. Hope this will be OK. Thanks, Bob Rossi