From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20717 invoked by alias); 2 May 2008 16:03:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 20705 invoked by uid 22791); 2 May 2008 16:03:27 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 May 2008 16:03:10 +0000 Received: (qmail 1960 invoked from network); 2 May 2008 16:03:06 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (vladimir@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 2 May 2008 16:03:06 -0000 From: Vladimir Prus To: Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: [RFA] Allow to enable run/stop notifications for function calls. Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 16:21:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200805011751.48573.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20080502155907.GU29202@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20080502155907.GU29202@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200805022002.56292.vladimir@codesourcery.com> 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: 2008-05/txt/msg00101.txt.bz2 On Friday 02 May 2008 19:59:07 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 05:51:48PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > > > I've already posted patches to produce more accurate *stopped notifications > > in MI and introduce *running notification. Those notification are not produced > > during inferior function calls, as it's very likely than an unprepared frontend > > will try to refetch everything in response to those *stopped, re-evaluating all > > expression again, calling functions again, etc. > > > > This patch allows a frontend to request the notification for function > > calls to be still emitted, by using > > > > -enable-feature infcall-run-stop-notifications > > > > OK? > > I'm still not convinced we need -enable-feature for anything that > -gdb-set and -gdb-show can not handle. Is -gdb-show output specified in any way? Is it subject to i18n? > What do you think about bundling this sort of update into MI version > 3? That cuts down on the number of possible knobs for output, which > is IMO important. Well, this might be good idea, provided everybody concerned agree that MI3 will be rapidly changing until futher notice and *no* compatibility will be guaranteed until that point. - Volodya