Re: [RFA] Implement *running.

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 04:35:52PM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> This has no regressions in default and async modes on x86. OK?

Just minor concerns.  Docs - yes, I know very well that you know this
- but making sure we see docs before the code change goes in makes
sure that no one forgets in the crush of other patches.  So, sorry,
but expect to keep getting this reply :-)

Also, what are the expected changes in async and non-async?  Will we
start generating this for non-async and is that likely to break any
frontend?

> 	* doc/observer.texi (target_resumed): New observer.

Doc has its own changelog.

> diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.mi/mi-break.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.mi/mi-break.exp
> index 48527fd..b895020 100644
> --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.mi/mi-break.exp
> +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.mi/mi-break.exp
> @@ -174,11 +174,11 @@ proc test_error {} {
>      # containing function call, the internal breakpoint created to handle
>      # function call would be reported, messing up MI output.
>      mi_gdb_test "-var-create V * return_1()" \
> -        "\\^done,name=\"V\",numchild=\"0\",value=\"1\",type=\"int\"" \
> +        ".*\\^done,name=\"V\",numchild=\"0\",value=\"1\",type=\"int\"" \
>          "create varobj for function call"

The comment suggests this test is supposed to fail if there is stray
output... adding a leading .* is not nice.

> +  /* We try not to notify the observer is not

is not -> if no.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery