From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10477 invoked by alias); 21 Mar 2008 21:26:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 10467 invoked by uid 22791); 21 Mar 2008 21:26:53 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (HELO host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net) (89.250.240.59) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 21:26:34 +0000 Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.2/8.14.1) with ESMTP id m2LLQAtH010765; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:26:10 +0100 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) id m2LLQ9D4010764; Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:26:09 +0100 Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 21:26:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Nick Roberts Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: PATCH: PR tui/2173: Arrow keys no longer works in breakpoint command list Message-ID: <20080321212609.GA10522@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> References: <18019.18081.448928.93993@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20070604010633.GA927@caradoc.them.org> <20070626131336.GA8960@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20080321203311.GA4245@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20080321212144.GA18716@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080321212144.GA18716@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-03/txt/msg00320.txt.bz2 On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 22:21:44 +0100, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 09:33:11PM +0100, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:01:51 +0100, Chet Ramey wrote: > > > I'm looking at the rl_unwind_protect thing a little more closely, and I'm > > > wondering why you didn't use rl_save_state and rl_restore_state ... > Thanks. I didn't know about those either. Is there anything > currently broken with our readline wrapper that needs fixing, though? I am not aware of any problem. > If it's working, I would rather leave it alone. We may in the future > want to really return to the main event loop while we're waiting for > the user to type, so that we can notice target events in async mode. > A blocking call to readline is a problem for that. OK, I was not aware of it. Regards, Jan