From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 40969 invoked by alias); 13 Mar 2019 15:17:53 -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 40957 invoked by uid 89); 13 Mar 2019 15:17:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-11.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=arranges, displays X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 15:17:51 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 017E85610E; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 11:17:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id vJbe9EBnjI+C; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 11:17:49 -0400 (EDT) Received: from murgatroyd (75-166-85-218.hlrn.qwest.net [75.166.85.218]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8DF8D5605D; Wed, 13 Mar 2019 11:17:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Don't show "display"s twice in MI References: <20190312190320.19645-1-tromey@adacore.com> <0a23b883-9c80-a9e2-1e3e-3aa8c0b0ce13@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2019 15:17:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <0a23b883-9c80-a9e2-1e3e-3aa8c0b0ce13@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Wed, 13 Mar 2019 15:04:23 +0000") Message-ID: <87y35ix0pv.fsf@tromey.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2019-03/txt/msg00268.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: >> Probably we shouldn't print the displays in that case, just to keep >> things simple, respecting should_print_stop_to_console, but not 100% >> sure. Pedro> So your patch makes GDB not do the displays in the Pedro> -exec-step/-exec-next case, which is the solution I was Pedro> leaning to above too, even though I'm not 100% sure about it. I'm not 100% sure either. We could have a more complicated patch that arranges for do_displays to be called just once, no matter what decision is made. Maybe this would be better? I originally thought it was somewhat odd to deal with displays in an MI stepping situation -- MI clients presumably would use varobj. But, really the scenario is that the MI client provides a console, the user types "display ...", and then debugs some more. I suppose the way that the "next" is done wouldn't matter to the user? Tom