From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23722 invoked by alias); 13 Aug 2005 05:04:51 -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 23364 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Aug 2005 05:04:16 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sat, 13 Aug 2005 05:04:16 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.52) id 1E3oBq-00020p-Jk; Sat, 13 Aug 2005 01:04:14 -0400 Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:47:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jim Ingham , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: RFC: MI output during program execution Message-ID: <20050813050414.GA7717@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jim Ingham , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Eli Zaretskii References: <20050809223421.GB3557@white> <20050810004128.GA4264@nevyn.them.org> <20050810004826.GD3557@white> <2040BEEA-4200-4118-91EB-D093ED4D37A1@apple.com> <20050812012810.GA10011@white> <29EA180F-E3C7-4D04-B500-655391EDA2D9@apple.com> <20050813002230.GA11892@white> <20050813011542.GC11892@white> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050813011542.GC11892@white> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-SW-Source: 2005-08/txt/msg00152.txt.bz2 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