From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-38037-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 19743 invoked by alias); 10 Feb 2005 17:47:41 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 19412 invoked from network); 10 Feb 2005 17:47:13 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31)
  by sourceware.org with SMTP; 10 Feb 2005 17:47:13 -0000
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j1AHlDem014602
	for <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>; Thu, 10 Feb 2005 12:47:13 -0500
Received: from localhost.redhat.com (to-dhcp51.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.151])
	by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id j1AHlDO10979;
	Thu, 10 Feb 2005 12:47:13 -0500
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 10FA67D79;
	Thu, 10 Feb 2005 12:46:23 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <420B9DEC.3060501@gnu.org>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:58:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <cagney@gnu.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (X11/20041020)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bob Rossi <bob@brasko.net>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: MI testsuite improvements
References: <20050210135229.GB28065@white> <420B8026.2060006@gnu.org> <20050210160954.GA28209@white>
In-Reply-To: <20050210160954.GA28209@white>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00094.txt.bz2


>>I'm ok with this, as I think you noted elsewhere, this has become the 
>>defacto standard.  Would you be interested in documenting this?
> 
> 
> Sure, where thought?

I've no idea.

>>The change should be applied to just mi-* and not mi2-*, and should only 
>>accept plain text on that PTY.   @... output on the PTY should be 
>>rejected ("in theory" so should anything on GDB's pty).
> 
> 
> Just curious, why are you interested in only applying changes to mi-* and 
> not to mi2-*?

We have effectively changed the interface (or its expected use).  New 
code should use/expect the PTY, old code should use/expect the @... 
mechanism.

Andrew