From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13311 invoked by alias); 1 Aug 2005 01:51:11 -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 12730 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Aug 2005 01:51:07 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Aug 2005 01:51:07 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1DzPSJ-0004XC-Fb; Sun, 31 Jul 2005 21:51:03 -0400 Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 01:51:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Nick Roberts Cc: Bob Rossi , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MI testsuite to use PTY for inferior Message-ID: <20050801015103.GD30901@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , Bob Rossi , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <17131.5769.342629.658975@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050730173855.GA21401@white> <17131.64575.780190.163527@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050730230309.GA22547@white> <20050731012111.GB13808@nevyn.them.org> <20050731131653.GC22547@white> <17133.17501.192145.90128@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050731213747.GA12024@nevyn.them.org> <17133.24015.980223.560772@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17133.24015.980223.560772@farnswood.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-08/txt/msg00000.txt.bz2 On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 11:25:03AM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote: > > > More generally I think its wrong to force > > > the frontend to separate the output. Currently, I get reasonable behaviour > > > with Emacs without doing this and would always include interleaved output as a > > > user option. > > > > Would it hurt you to stitch them back together, though? The fewer > > interfaces we have to support, the better... > > I guess it would even be safer in cases where the inferior has similar output > e.g debugging GDB itself. However, I thought there were systems where ptys Yes, I agree. > weren't available (w32?). Even if you can't run the testsuite, you might > still want to run GDB there (actually, I thought FSF GDB *is* being ported to > w32 - how is it tested?). Yes. And, there, we are going to need a different solution. Probably, we would declare applications that use the console IO routines directly unsupported, and run other applications via a pipe, allowing GDB to capture input and output separately. Lots of people are interested in native Windows debugging - but not so many are interested in console apps! Speaking for CodeSourcery, we're only porting GDB to Windows _host_. So it doesn't need much testing besides making sure the CLI works OK. And you can run expect under Cygwin to test a mingw32 GDB, which I hadn't thought about in my previous message. But we don't do that at the moment. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC