From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3065 invoked by alias); 17 Jun 2002 17:25:29 -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 2986 invoked from network); 17 Jun 2002 17:25:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 17 Jun 2002 17:25:26 -0000 Received: from makita.cygnus.com (makita.sfbay.redhat.com [192.168.30.83]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA04323; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:25:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (keiths@localhost) by makita.cygnus.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.6.4) with ESMTP id KAA13285; Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:25:25 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: makita.cygnus.com: keiths owned process doing -bs Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 10:25:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz X-X-Sender: To: Andrew Cagney cc: Subject: Re: [RFC/MI] Event Records vs Commands In-Reply-To: <3D0BF171.2030409@cygnus.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-06/txt/msg00301.txt.bz2 On Sat, 15 Jun 2002, Andrew Cagney wrote: > Breakpoint events can occure ``asynchronously'': a shared library load > might trigger the setting of a breakpoint; a user's breakpoint commands > might change the state of a breakpoint and then continue. > > Hence, as far as I can tell you just want to ``notify-async-output''. Ok. > > (gdb) > > -break-insert main > > =breakpoint-create,number="1" > > (gdb) > > I believe this is wrong. There should still be a ``^done''. Yes, that was just an omission on my part. The manual still contains the "^done" bits. > Given breakpoint output appears everywhere in the testsuite, the import > is going to be a little large. There should still be a few things that > can be cherry picked though - some of the testsuite shuffle for instance. Yes. I do not plan to dump one mega-patch onto people. I will submit patches piece by piece as best I can, and there will always be the sandbox branch that I'm working on in case people want to play with the whole thing. > If breakpoint-create included complete breakpoint information an > additional roundtrip could be avoided. Is this significant? I suspect > this is a question for some of the apple hackers as they would have a > better feel for how critical this one is :-) I don't really think a breakpoint query is going to do too much, but if we want to keep it, we certainly can. All I would need to do is make the code more event friendly. Keith