Re: Testing of reverse debug commands

[Hui Zhu <teawater@gmail.com>]

On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 21:16, Pedro Alves<pedro@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Monday 13 July 2009 04:31:37, Hui Zhu wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 03:25, Marc Khouzam<marc.khouzam@ericsson.com> wrote:
>> >> Pedro Alves wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > (gdb)
>> >> > record stop
>> >> > &"record stop\n"
>> >> > ~"Process record is not started.\n"
>> >> > ^done
>> >> > (gdb)
>> >>
>> >> > So, I think some improvement would be nice for frontends.
>> >>
>> >> So, is this really an error?  Hui seems to have thought
>> >> it wasn't.  Hui?  If it is, then it's just a matter of
>> >> changing the corresponding printf_unfiltered calls in
>> >> record.c to `error' calls (look for the "Process record
>> >> is..." string).
>> >> Then MI will get an ^error,msg="foo", instead of a ~"foo" + ^done.
>> >
>> > That would be more consistent for a frontend.  The frontend
>> > can then decide if this should be reported as an error or simply
>> > accepted.  But that is not such a big deal anymore, now that
>> > you pointed out 'record' itself does report an error.
>> >
>>
>> I think the record's query and something is make a lot of troubles.
>> I make a patch for it.  Please help me with it.
>
> I got confused, since this isn't answering the question I asked.
>
> This particular issue will be resolved when the query/nquery/yquery/MI
> discussion reaches a conclusion, yes?  Or is this an independent change?
> Do note that we have other CLI commands that query and default to
> a "destructive" 'yes', like "run -> attach (kill?)", for example.
> Maybe you should post this in its own new thread.
>
> I think it would be nice if we crafted a GDB HIG.  Do we have
> something of the sorts already?
>

Actually,  I got confused too.  Sorry for that.  This is a long ... thread.
Somebody told about query,  somebody told about error.

I send a patch to show my idea with it.

Maybe some people can help me with it.  :)

Thanks,
Hui