From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14486 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2005 02:36:29 -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 14444 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Aug 2005 02:36:16 -0000 Received: from eastrmmtao02.cox.net (HELO eastrmmtao02.cox.net) (68.230.240.37) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Tue, 16 Aug 2005 02:36:16 +0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by eastrmmtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050816023610.WZOL29959.eastrmmtao02.cox.net@white> for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:36:10 -0400 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1E4rJC-0002pk-00 for ; Mon, 15 Aug 2005 22:36:10 -0400 Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 03:54:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: MI output during program execution Message-ID: <20050816023610.GA10882@white> Mail-Followup-To: 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> <20050816003310.GA26141@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20050816003310.GA26141@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-SW-Source: 2005-08/txt/msg00191.txt.bz2 On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 08:33:11PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 04:28:07PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote: > > > The hooks we were talking about were primarily for things like the > > > breakpoint list and thread list. The ^running response is touchier. > > > ^running is a result record, not an async record. It has to be the > > > result of a command. > > > > It is classed as a result record in MI but presumably its an asynchronous > > process. Perhaps it should be *running, just as it is *stopped. Treating it > > Yeah - I'm beginning to think that we should use this: > > (gdb) > -exec-continue > *running > ^done > (gdb) > > Instead of the current: > > (gdb) > -exec-continue > ^running > (gdb) Agreed. > It'd definitely have to be mi3 only, though! This would be a pretty > big change that frontends would have to adapt to. > > The asymmetry between ^running and *stopped will bite us here. For > instance, for a CLI command, I'd want roughly: > > (gdb) > -interpreter-exec console "continue" > *running > ^done > (gdb) Agreed. Bob Rossi