From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15134 invoked by alias); 19 Aug 2002 14:50:11 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15125 invoked from network); 19 Aug 2002 14:50:11 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cerbere.u-strasbg.fr) (130.79.112.250) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 19 Aug 2002 14:50:11 -0000 Received: from laocoon (laocoon.u-strasbg.fr [130.79.112.72]) by cerbere.u-strasbg.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96624561 for ; Mon, 19 Aug 2002 16:56:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-Id: <4.2.0.58.20020819163726.00a46ff0@ics.u-strasbg.fr> X-Sender: muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 07:50:00 -0000 To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com From: Pierre Muller Subject: Re: RFA: Make cli-out follow gdb_stdout In-Reply-To: <20020717183012.GA9788@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00549.txt.bz2 At 20:30 17/07/2002 , Daniel Jacobowitz a écrit: >Right now, when you create a cli_out object via cli_out_new, you pass the >value of gdb_stdout. If we want to temporarily redirect output, that loses. >Rather than temporarily changing the UI, I'd like to have cli_out_new follow >gdb_stdout. > >There were two ways to do this: > - hardcode the relationship between cli_out and gdb_stdout, since all >callers pass the same thing. > - Pass &gdb_stdout instead of gdb_stdout. > >I opted for the latter, as Pierre originally suggested. If someone's got a >preference for the former I can switch easily enough. I need this patch >before I can submit the code to support '>' and '>>', based on Tom Tromey's >patch from last October. > >OK? This mail is followed by several others in which Andrew and Daniel argue about the proposed patch... Andrew says >>So the assertion: >> >> global uiout->stream->ui_file == global gdb_stdout >> >>doesn't hold :-( But I think there is a confusion at that point (at least after reading of the thread, I was not really sure that it was clear). My impression is that the current way the cli_out_new works is not correct because if you change gdb_stdout, this change is not reflected in the uiout global var. Thus the above assertion does not hold in the current old code, but if I understood Daneil's patch correctly that patch should have solved that issue. Thus I am very disappointed by the final outcome of this thread... I really tought that Daniel's idea was the way to go, as uiout is not known in all source files, but gdb_stdout is. Also, I didn't understand the intent of Andrew concerning this issue. Andrew, could you try to reformulate your point of view? Pierre Muller Institut Charles Sadron 6,rue Boussingault F 67083 STRASBOURG CEDEX (France) mailto:muller@ics.u-strasbg.fr Phone : (33)-3-88-41-40-07 Fax : (33)-3-88-41-40-99