From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26742 invoked by alias); 13 Aug 2005 06:47:37 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26723 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Aug 2005 06:47:31 -0000 Received: from mail-out3.apple.com (HELO mail-out3.apple.com) (17.254.13.22) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.30-dev) with ESMTP; Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:47:31 +0000 Received: from mailgate1.apple.com (a17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out3.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7D6lTbt023781 for ; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 23:47:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: from relay3.apple.com (relay3.apple.com) by mailgate1.apple.com (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.3.17) with ESMTP id ; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 23:47:29 -0700 Received: from [17.112.107.164] ([17.112.107.164]) by relay3.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j7D6lQAL015475; Fri, 12 Aug 2005 23:47:27 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20050813050414.GA7717@nevyn.them.org> References: <20050809223421.GB3557@white> <20050810004128.GA4264@nevyn.them.org> <20050810004826.GD3557@white> <2040BEEA-4200-4118-91EB-D093ED4D37A1@apple.com> <20050812012810.GA10011@white> <29EA180F-E3C7-4D04-B500-655391EDA2D9@apple.com> <20050813002230.GA11892@white> <20050813011542.GC11892@white> <20050813050414.GA7717@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v733) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, Eli Zaretskii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Jim Ingham Subject: Re: RFC: MI output during program execution Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:06:00 -0000 To: Daniel Jacobowitz X-SW-Source: 2005-08/txt/msg00153.txt.bz2 On Aug 12, 2005, at 10:04 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 09:15:42PM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 05:33:25PM -0700, Jim Ingham wrote: >> >>>> OK, unfortunatly, I'm still trying to catch up here. I think I >>>> understand the observer approach, however, what is the event >>>> approach? >>>> Is that different than the "hooks" you have? >>>> >>> >>> So it LOOKS like the "events" are supposed to be the replacements >>> for >>> the hooks... >>> >>> But then there's the whole observer thing, which from what I read of >>> the gdb-patches traffic at the time was supposed to be a more >>> general >>> solution for watching interesting events. But it doesn't seem to be >>> used all that much. >>> >>> So I am not really sure what's supposed to be happening here. >>> >>> Moving from hooks to events seems a trivial formal exercise. I >>> don't >>> know if they will get deprecated soon or what, however... >>> >> >> Jim thanks for all the help! Really. >> >> Can anyone reliable answer if hooks or events are supposed to be >> used in >> the future for GDB? if neither of these, is there another approach? >> >> If there is no approach that the core GDB developers prefer, or know >> that are already in place, we are free to choose from any approach. >> > > Or do as I described earlier today, and add a new mechanism > specifically designed to notify interpreters of events that could be > interesting (which might meet Eli's concerns about misusing observers, > but we'd have to ask him!), or else call into the MI interpreter > directly from the code without messing with any kind of mechanism. The hooks worked just fine for this purpose. Dunno why they were deprecated. The events which are in all the same places, and work pretty much the same way, also should be just fine... We should pick one of these, I think, rather than invent yet another. Jim