Re: MI testsuite improvements

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 03:02:05PM -0500, Bob Rossi wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2005 at 09:41:56AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> > Bob Rossi wrote:
> > 
> > >>Let me know what you think. If you want the dbg.log files, I can provide
> > >>them.
> > 
> > I was kind of looking for an executive summary :-)  I've attached a 
> > trimmed diff.
> > 
> > Two things:
> > 
> > - it should't be using --interpreter console ...
> > Can you and/or: add a new -mi-tty command (+test, +doco) and use that; 
> > invoke GDB with the --tty=... option.  Your call.  Either pre-approved 
> > (but get thumbs up from Eli on the doco).
> > 
> > - can the TTY output be identified in someway?
> > That might make debugging easier, but if it isn't possible I guess we 
> > live with that.
> 
> OK, I like this idea a lot. I'll make a new mi function that allows you
> to set a tty. I'll also make a new MI function that will allow you to
> retrieve the tty device being used, both GDB and the inferior.
> 
> Finally, I think it would be helpful to have GDB actually be able to
> create a pty for the front end. In case you didn't know, creating a pty
> can be a non portable task, and GDB should be capable of doing it every
> where it ports to. This would help out the Front Ends a lot. What do you
> think? Something like -mi-tty-new -mi-tty-close?

Are you sure this is a good idea?  Not only is it non-portable, but
there's a lot of alternatives.  For instance, the front end probably
wants to create the PTY with its other end pointed somewhere useful,
and in some frontend-private namespace.  A text-based front end might
want to connect the PTY to an already running screen session.  And so
forth.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC