From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8855 invoked by alias); 15 Aug 2005 23:05:32 -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 8414 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Aug 2005 23:05:14 -0000 Received: from eastrmmtao06.cox.net (HELO eastrmmtao06.cox.net) (68.230.240.33) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:05:14 +0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by eastrmmtao06.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050815230510.RWHI28616.eastrmmtao06.cox.net@white>; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:05:10 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1E4o12-0002lD-00; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:05:12 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 00:04:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Nick Roberts Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: MI output during program execution Message-ID: <20050815230511.GA10558@white> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , Daniel Jacobowitz , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <17151.52148.262754.334426@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20050815021546.GA20931@nevyn.them.org> <17152.6615.577337.131388@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17152.6615.577337.131388@farnswood.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-SW-Source: 2005-08/txt/msg00187.txt.bz2 > > Also, Bob said he was willing to work on doing this correctly. > > I'm lost. I'm not sure what correctly means in this case. I would like > to get MI-like output (specifically about whether the execution is running > or not) from CLI commands. Is Bob offering to do this? Hi Nick, What I offered to work on (because you mentioned you didn't have time), is to improve the MI interface, by changing GDB's internals to alert other parts of GDB (MI, maybe annotate=2,3) when certain conditions or states have changed. For instance, breakpoints, frame's, threads, or inferior state. By doing this, the MI layer can then check to see what has changed after each command is run, including -interpreter-exec console commands. The MI layer can then issue data to the FE depending on what has changed, and potentially what the FE requested for changes. This might require changing the MI output syntax to add a new section for changes like above. I'm not sure about this yet. Does this proposed solution sound reasonable to you? Will this solve all the needs that you have? To be honest, CGDB also won't work without these changes. However, with theses changes, MI might be getting close to being very usable, thus, deprecating annotations. Do you agree? To be realist, I expect these changes to take several months. Especially since Mark Kettenis asked that all the deprecated functions be removed first. Hopefully the time won't be an issue. Thanks, Bob Rossi