Re: [MI non-stop 06/11, RFA/RFC] Report non-stop availability, and allow to enable everything with one command.

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 04:46:38PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> On Tuesday 12 August 2008 16:08:35 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 10:09:11AM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > > My motivation was that the most intuitive model is that of
> > > immediate application of non-stop flag, with error produced
> > > immediately. This is hard to implement.
> > > 
> > > Next most intuitive model is "I prefer non-stop mode", which is
> > > what I propose.
> > 
> > Actually I think this is very unintuitive.  You'll have to know
> > whether you get non-stop or not because commands act very differently
> > between all-stop and non-stop.  Scripts written for the one won't work
> > with the other, for example.
> 
> Yes, you have to know whether you get non-stop or not -- does this contradict
> to anything I've said?

Yes.  If enabling non-stop means "I prefer non-stop" then every script
and front end has to query "I asked for non-stop but did I really get
it?" and the user has to be paying attention to GDB's messages.  I
don't think that's a good idea.

This is mostly a problem for the testsuite.  Non-stop will be awesome
and useful so the targets where people want it, it'll get implemented :-)

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery