From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6864 invoked by alias); 10 Sep 2002 14:49:14 -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 6857 invoked from network); 10 Sep 2002 14:49:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO valrhona.uglyboxes.com) (64.1.192.220) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Sep 2002 14:49:13 -0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain (IDENT:SNPYAZ3sdvwOAEKiooYSJ64B1r7xEsHY@localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by valrhona.uglyboxes.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g8AEptJ09046; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 07:51:55 -0700 Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 07:49:00 -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: <15742.1117.465316.863673@localhost.redhat.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00150.txt.bz2 On Tue, 10 Sep 2002, Elena Zannoni wrote: > Yes, please. Thanks. It will be easier to maintain if we have only one > copy of these functions. UGH. Now I remember why I did this... mi_run_to_helper expects an MI command to execute, either "exec-continue" or "exec-run". There is no way for us to know this if we are attempting to run the inferior for the first time (or re-run it). This is usually handled by mi_run_cmd, and that is the difference between these to functions. They are essentially the same, otherwise. The best I can do is put the mi_gdb_test for the stop in anohter proc, but I think that would just mess the code up even more. (mi_step and mi_next are okay, though). Of course, it's your call. Keith