From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 983 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2002 14:31:24 -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 976 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2002 14:31:22 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO valrhona.uglyboxes.com) (64.1.192.220) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 14:31:22 -0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain (IDENT:m42ChPE8Dx2+HU/Mdzw8emF3mdx+h7un@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by valrhona.uglyboxes.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8AEY5J08575; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 07:34:05 -0700 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 07:31:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz X-X-Sender: keiths@valrhona.uglyboxes.com To: Elena Zannoni cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA/MI testsuite] Add mi_runto In-Reply-To: <15741.22826.911452.93307@localhost.redhat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00148.txt.bz2 On Mon, 9 Sep 2002, Elena Zannoni wrote: > Same question as for the other patch. How does this interact with > mi_run_to? > Do we need both versions? Like mi_step/next_to, I think that I could have made a better decision to implement this in terms of mi_run_to_helper, but there is still one shortcoming, though: mi_run_to does not know how to start the target running, while mi_runto does. If you'd like I can rewrite both of these patches using mi_run_to procs. (I'll just assume that you'd like that and start on that. I don't really know right now what I was thinking when I rewrote this all again.) Keith