From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12446 invoked by alias); 20 Jul 2009 13:15:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 12429 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Jul 2009 13:15:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:15:38 +0000 Received: (qmail 20902 invoked from network); 20 Jul 2009 13:15:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 20 Jul 2009 13:15:36 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Hui Zhu Subject: Re: Testing of reverse debug commands Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:27:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: Marc Khouzam , Michael Snyder , Jan Kratochvil , Joel Brobecker , "gdb-patches ml" References: <4A5930EE.3040201@vmware.com> <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA07B71A3E@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200907201416.25823.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2009-07/txt/msg00471.txt.bz2 On Monday 13 July 2009 04:31:37, Hui Zhu wrote: > On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 03:25, Marc Khouzam wr= ote: > >> 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? =A0Hui seems to have thought > >> it wasn't. =A0Hui? =A0If 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=3D"foo", instead of a ~"foo" + ^done. > > > > That would be more consistent for a frontend. =A0The frontend > > can then decide if this should be reported as an error or simply > > accepted. =A0But that is not such a big deal anymore, now that > > you pointed out 'record' itself does report an error. > > >=20 > 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? --=20 Pedro Alves