From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9435 invoked by alias); 2 Aug 2005 20:48:10 -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 9103 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Aug 2005 20:47:52 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:47:52 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1E03fy-0003tR-GE for gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com; Tue, 02 Aug 2005 16:47:50 -0400 Date: Tue, 02 Aug 2005 20:48:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MI testsuite to use PTY for inferior Message-ID: <20050802204750.GA14919@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20050731212021.GA24144@white> <20050801113002.GB24853@white> <200508011901.j71J1i1w026583@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20050801205242.GA20064@nevyn.them.org> <20050802035020.GA18143@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-08/txt/msg00048.txt.bz2 On Tue, Aug 02, 2005 at 11:45:20PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 23:50:20 -0400 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > > Yes, but the problem's that the buffering is in the program being > > debugged. It's not the buffering of the GDB MI stream that's the > > problem, but the fact that the stdout of the program you're debugging > > would suddenly become block buffered instead of line buffered, if you > > fed it to a pipe when it expects a TTY. > > This started as a discussion how to separate MI output from the > debuggee's. For that, I suggested to redirect MI's output (_not_ the > debuggee's) to a different file handle. That should not change the > buffering of the debuggee's stdout in any way. While the problem you > mention is real, it has nothing to do with separation of these two > streams: if sending the program's output to a pipe changes its > buffering, we already have that annoyance on Windows. Ah! Thank you, I misunderstood your solution. This is a very interesting idea indeed. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC