From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6766 invoked by alias); 5 Jun 2008 16:38:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 6753 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jun 2008 16:38:46 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 16:38:26 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B06898371; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 16:38:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D8499809F; Thu, 5 Jun 2008 16:38:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K4ITo-00038A-Bm; Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:38:24 -0400 Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2008 16:38:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Fix MI/async testsuite Message-ID: <20080605163824.GI29085@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200805041618.14962.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200805042138.02094.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20080504195640.GA15966@caradoc.them.org> <200805051240.48055.vladimir@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200805051240.48055.vladimir@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-06/txt/msg00039.txt.bz2 Sorry, I shouldn't have dropped this conversation. Now I'm going to have to figure out all the issues again... On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 12:40:47PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote: > On Sunday 04 May 2008 23:56:40 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > For MI2, why can't we leave ^running > > We can't "leave" it, because in async mode ^running is not immediately followed > by a prompt, now, and before any my changes. > > > always followed by a prompt? We > > fail to accept input at that prompt in sync mode, which is a known > > bug, but that's life. > > I sure can make all ^running be followed by prompt, but that would be "fixing" > code to be as buggy as the other code. Does it worth the time? Working async mode is a new feature. Previous releases of GDB always had ^running followed by a prompt, and I think that's the right thing to output if you're going to use ^running. > > I don't think having ^result followed by =EVENT followed by (gdb) > > makes sense, > > I think it does -- and the MI spec I've just posted explicitly calls for > such behaviour for run commands: > > 1. First you get ^done, which means "Okay, nothing else to do about this command" > 2. Then you get *running, =whatever, ..., *stopped Why is *running after ^done, anyway? > In async mode, you get prompt immediately after (1) -- because it's where gdb > is ready to accept commands. In sync mode, you get prompt after (2). Of course, > we can print ^done only after (2) in that case, but does it make sense? There won't be any ^done will there? ^running, (gdb), *stopped, (gdb). And in async mode I'd expect something like -exec-start *running ^done (gdb) [pause while things run] *stopped [I don't remember if we get a prompt here.] -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery