Re: MI testsuite to use PTY for inferior

Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-08-01T13:00:35Z

On Mon, Aug 01, 2005 at 07:30:02AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> Hi Eli,
>
> I am claiming that a reliable FE can not be written if the inferior writes
> data to the same output stream as GDB/MI's output stream. So, on native
> windows, if the inferior I/O and GDB/MI I/O can not be separated, it
> wouldn't be worth while to write an FE on that platform.

That's a very strange judgement call:

(A) The huge majority of Windows programs don't even write to the
console.

(B) The huge majority of programs which write to stdout, on Windows
or otherwise, couldn't possibly be confused with GDB/MI output.

> Nick, does Emacs port natively to windows? Does GDB/MI work reliably for
> you there?

Not relevant, since his Emacs port doesn't use a separate TTY at the
moment. It works just fine with interleaved I/O in fact.

> Are there any other routes to go down here? Should we have an
> alternative mode where GDB reads the output of the inferior and writes
> it to a named pipe? or simply writes it encoded in the MI output stream?
> This functionality could work in both UNIX/windows. However, it wouldn't
> give terminal semantics.

Windows doesn't _HAVE_ terminal semantics! If it did, it'd probably
have pseudo-ttys too.

I've already suggested pipes; I don't know if there are named pipes on
Windows or unnamed ones. Currently we encode writes in the output
stream. My question upthread is whether we should continue to do so.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC