From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14716 invoked by alias); 14 Oct 2011 19:49:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 14706 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Oct 2011 19:49:05 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 19:48:48 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9EJmkc8014598 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:48:46 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p9EJmkmK018567; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:48:46 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p9EJmjid028670; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:48:45 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Kevin Pouget Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [Python - doc] gdb.post_event description References: Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 19:49:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: (Kevin Pouget's message of "Wed, 12 Oct 2011 10:52:38 +0200") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.90 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-10/txt/msg00420.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Kevin" == Kevin Pouget writes: Kevin> according to my experimentations, gdb_do_one_event, which (indirectly) Kevin> triggers the processing of Python events posted with gdb.post_event, Kevin> is executed right after the prompt has been displayed (and new Kevin> charactered fed in), and nowhere else (as far as I could investigate). Kevin> Does it look right to you? Yeah, but I would not want to document this too precisely; it is good, I think, to have some leeway so we can run the event queue at other times if we find the need in the future. Tom