Re: CLI and GDB/MI documentation patch

Eli Zaretskii
2006-05-12T14:12:52Z

> From: Nick Roberts <nickrob@snap.net.nz>
> Date: Sun, 14 May 2006 00:43:41 +1200
> Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
>
> > - That typing CLI command has the same effect as -interpreter-exec console
>
> Its not quite the same, the latter goes through mi_cmd_execute but the
> former doesn't.

Bob described the minor differences:

There may be a small difference in the @sc{gdb/mi} output between
directly typing the CLI command into the @sc{gdb/mi} interpreter or by using
the @code{-interpreter-exec} command, however, both ways should provide
valid @sc{gdb/mi} output.

(``small differences in output'' is too vague; I'd like a more precise
and clear description of the differences.)

And later:

One current major difference between entering a CLI command directly into
the @sc{gdb/mi} interpreter and entering the corresponding @sc{gdb/mi}
command into the interpreter is that the CLI command will not have the
asynchronous output that the @sc{gdb/mi} command will have. For instance,
typing @code{run} as a CLI command, you will not get the @code{*stopped}
response that @sc{gdb/mi} will provide if you enter the @code{-exec-run}
command.

Are there any other differences? If so, let's describe them.

> > Those points are important to have documented, IMO.
>
> Putting these things in the manual just makes it harder to change GDB.
> I would rather say: "Its there. Use it at your own risk". Or at least:
>
>
> For the developers convenience CLI commands can be entered directly.
> However this feature may be removed at some stage in the future and
> it is recommended that front ends use the @code{-interpreter exec} command.
> @xref{GDB/MI Miscellaneous Commands}.

Do we indeed intend to remove this feature any time soon? If so, I
agree that we should add a warning about that. But, other than that,
why do you say that describing the CLI support in mi in more detail
will make it harder to change GDB?