Re: RFC: MI output during program execution

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 09:15:42PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 05:33:25PM -0700, Jim Ingham wrote:
> > >OK, unfortunatly, I'm still trying to catch up here. I think I
> > >understand the observer approach, however, what is the event approach?
> > >Is that different than the "hooks" you have?
> > 
> > So it LOOKS like the "events" are supposed to be the replacements for  
> > the hooks...
> > 
> > But then there's the whole observer thing, which from what I read of  
> > the gdb-patches traffic at the time was supposed to be a more general  
> > solution for watching interesting events.  But it doesn't seem to be  
> > used all that much.
> >
> > So I am not really sure what's supposed to be happening here.
> > 
> > Moving from hooks to events seems a trivial formal exercise.  I don't  
> > know if they will get deprecated soon or what, however...
> 
> Jim thanks for all the help! Really.
> 
> Can anyone reliable answer if hooks or events are supposed to be used in
> the future for GDB? if neither of these, is there another approach?
> 
> If there is no approach that the core GDB developers prefer, or know
> that are already in place, we are free to choose from any approach.

Or do as I described earlier today, and add a new mechanism
specifically designed to notify interpreters of events that could be
interesting (which might meet Eli's concerns about misusing observers,
but we'd have to ask him!), or else call into the MI interpreter
directly from the code without messing with any kind of mechanism.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC