From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26051 invoked by alias); 6 Jun 2006 17:41:31 -0000 Received: (qmail 26031 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jun 2006 17:41:29 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-out4.apple.com (HELO mail-out4.apple.com) (17.254.13.23) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Jun 2006 17:40:51 +0000 Received: from relay7.apple.com (a17-128-113-37.apple.com [17.128.113.37]) by mail-out4.apple.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k56He51h024690; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 10:40:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [17.201.22.240] (unknown [17.201.22.240]) by relay7.apple.com (Apple SCV relay) with ESMTP id B5C558F; Tue, 6 Jun 2006 10:40:05 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 06 Jun 2006 17:41:00 -0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Nick Roberts , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com From: Jim Ingham In-Reply-To: <20060606172948.GA745@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Subject: Re: starting gdb/mi from FE References: <17540.53854.931145.771214@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20060606012001.GA7954@nevyn.them.org> <17540.57896.489747.811644@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <8EE08A24-F526-4AE6-89A5-46C7AB15A77D@apple.com> <20060606172948.GA745@nevyn.them.org> To: Daniel Jacobowitz Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v813) Message-Id: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.813) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-06/txt/msg00068.txt.bz2 Stuff like this doesn't currently work: (top-gdb) interpreter-exec console "set interpreter mi1" -exec-run readline: readline_callback_read_char() called with no handler! Abort I haven't looked into how hard it would be to get this to work. I'd have to go dig back through my mail to see what else they were worried about, it was a couple of years ago now. Jim On Jun 6, 2006, at 10:29 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 08:39:21AM -0700, Jim Ingham wrote: >> part was explicitly rejected. IIRC the argument at the time was that >> you could manage to do nested calls to set interpreter, and it was >> hard to make that work. This didn't so much bother me - people who >> taunt the software like that deserve what they get. So I've > > As long as we either make it work, or make it error(), I'm happy... > though I'd have expected it to work. > > -- > Daniel Jacobowitz > CodeSourcery