From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1692 invoked by alias); 29 Aug 2011 16:39:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 1524 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Aug 2011 16:39:35 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:39:21 +0000 Received: (qmail 21501 invoked from network); 29 Aug 2011 16:39:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 29 Aug 2011 16:39:19 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] python prompt additions at first prompt. Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 16:39:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-11-generic; KDE/4.7.0; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Matt Rice , Tom Tromey References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201108291739.17600.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: 2011-08/txt/msg00573.txt.bz2 On Monday 29 August 2011 17:22:48, Matt Rice wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 8:07 AM, Matt Rice wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 7:44 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > >> On Friday 12 August 2011 14:10:17, Matt Rice wrote: > >>> it seems clearer to return early in all sync_execution cases, and > >>> limit the potential for introducing the double prompting type of bug. > >>> I haven't been able to find any problems with this approach. > >> > >> I think this breaks the pagination prompt in async mode. Try setting > >> a breakpoint in a loop, with a command list that just continues: > >> > >> (gdb) b inloop > >> (gdb) commands > >> Type commands for breakpoint(s) 2, one per line. > >> End with a line saying just "end". > >>>c > >>>end > >> (gdb) c > > > > Yeah it does, thank you for pointing this out. > > > > Here is a version of my previous patch, which doesn't suffer from this failure. > I have added comments explaining that we really do want to display an > empty prompt in this case. > > hopefully this clears up any confusion... Thanks. I'd like to take a look at this. Let me clear a few other pending async things first, and I'll get back on this. -- Pedro Alves