From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1105 invoked by alias); 10 Feb 2017 19:08:27 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 965 invoked by uid 89); 10 Feb 2017 19:08:26 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=H*i:sk:cbc68b6, H*f:sk:cbc68b6, H*MI:sk:cbc68b6 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 19:08:25 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7943B81231; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 19:08:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn04.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.4]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v1AJ8NmW030460; Fri, 10 Feb 2017 14:08:24 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't send queries to the MI interpreter To: Simon Marchi , Simon Marchi References: <20170210163650.10334-1-simon.marchi@ericsson.com> <89904751-7015-b272-98c1-33e786f7c356@redhat.com> <85ae4ad9-acdc-c9ba-6606-a7ac2abc7e2e@redhat.com> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <59666f59-4e8d-7461-2822-755281e2a2de@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2017 19:08:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2017-02/txt/msg00274.txt.bz2 On 02/10/2017 07:02 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: > On 17-02-10 12:44 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> And it is at this point that I thought that it is odd to >> query and ask for user input deep down inside the record layer, >> while handling some asynchronous execution event -- i.e., >> deep down inside handle_inferior_event. If we're buffering >> output, when the user won't see the query anyway. >> Hmm, now that I think of it, the "Do you want to auto delete >> previous execution" query wouldn't be converted to an error, >> but instead to a something like TARGET_WAITKIND_NO_HISTORY, >> I suppose. > > And TARGET_WAITKIND_NO_HISTORY would cause a user-visible stop? Yes. TARGET_WAITKIND_NO_HISTORY already exists. It causes a user-visible stop with "No more reverse-execution history". This case is similar, except it's more like "No more SPACE in reverse-execution history". > (I'm processing the rest and will reply to your latest message) Thanks, Pedro Alves