From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19422 invoked by alias); 13 Nov 2012 21:57:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 19414 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Nov 2012 21:57:28 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:57:21 +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 qADLvJ4d002913 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:57:19 -0500 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 qADLvHNK029872 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 13 Nov 2012 16:57:18 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: lgustavo@codesourcery.com Cc: Pedro Alves , ali_anwar , dje@google.com, Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Patch to propagate GDB's knowledge of the executing state to frontend References: <50891E05.7050509@codesourcery.com> <508F719C.2080409@codesourcery.com> <20627.61842.606081.697743@ruffy2.mtv.corp.google.com> <50941519.6010005@codesourcery.com> <509D5E19.5060409@redhat.com> <509D8B21.2040804@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 21:57:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <509D8B21.2040804@codesourcery.com> (Luis Machado's message of "Fri, 09 Nov 2012 21:00:49 -0200") Message-ID: <87wqxp414y.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.2 (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: 2012-11/txt/msg00350.txt.bz2 Luis> Should frontends relying on MI information treat ^error specially and Luis> not look for any *stopped records? I don't know the answer to this. I did find this though: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=7778 I tend to think it would be cleanest if gdb were to emit a *stopped in case of error -- but only if it previously emitted *running. I don't know how feasible this is. Luis> The MI specification gives room for slightly different interpretations Luis> unfortunately. For me, the text for "*running" is pretty clear: The frontend should assume that no interaction with a running thread is possible after this notification is produced. I'm curious where the text is that gives room for another approach. Tom