Re: Testing of reverse debug commands

[Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>]

On Monday 13 July 2009 04:31:37, Hui Zhu wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 03:25, Marc Khouzam<marc.khouzam@ericsson.com> wrote:
> >> Pedro Alves wrote:
> >> >
> >> > (gdb)
> >> > record stop
> >> > &"record stop\n"
> >> > ~"Process record is not started.\n"
> >> > ^done
> >> > (gdb)
> >>
> >> > So, I think some improvement would be nice for frontends.
> >>
> >> So, is this really an error?  Hui seems to have thought
> >> it wasn't.  Hui?  If it is, then it's just a matter of
> >> changing the corresponding printf_unfiltered calls in
> >> record.c to `error' calls (look for the "Process record
> >> is..." string).
> >> Then MI will get an ^error,msg="foo", instead of a ~"foo" + ^done.
> >
> > That would be more consistent for a frontend.  The frontend
> > can then decide if this should be reported as an error or simply
> > accepted.  But that is not such a big deal anymore, now that
> > you pointed out 'record' itself does report an error.
> >
> 
> I think the record's query and something is make a lot of troubles.
> I make a patch for it.  Please help me with it.

I got confused, since this isn't answering the question I asked.

This particular issue will be resolved when the query/nquery/yquery/MI
discussion reaches a conclusion, yes?  Or is this an independent change?
Do note that we have other CLI commands that query and default to
a "destructive" 'yes', like "run -> attach (kill?)", for example.
Maybe you should post this in its own new thread.

I think it would be nice if we crafted a GDB HIG.  Do we have
something of the sorts already?

-- 
Pedro Alves