From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30318 invoked by alias); 27 Jun 2012 19:40:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 30305 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jun 2012 19:40:47 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:40:20 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q5RJeIan025868 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:40:18 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q5RJeG8i026336 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Wed, 27 Jun 2012 15:40:17 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Stan Shebs Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Logging for MI References: <4FE80E5E.903@earthlink.net> Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2012 19:40:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4FE80E5E.903@earthlink.net> (Stan Shebs's message of "Mon, 25 Jun 2012 00:08:14 -0700") Message-ID: <87sjdg5ysf.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain 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: 2012-06/txt/msg00839.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Stan" == Stan Shebs writes: Stan> Although the patch seems straightforward, it entailed quite a bit of Stan> trial-and-error, and I've probably missed a few cases in the tangled Stan> tubing that is GDB's ui-file system; comments welcome. I don't really understand all that code either. It is pretty light on docs; but also just convoluted. Stan> I plan to commit this in a few days if no flaws come to light. I was curious whether it did the right thing if logging is enabled and then the user sends a CLI command to the MI interpreter. I dug through the code a little but couldn't convince myself either way. Tom