From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4911 invoked by alias); 12 May 2006 14:12:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 4829 invoked by uid 22791); 12 May 2006 14:12:50 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (HELO nitzan.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.20) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 May 2006 14:12:47 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-44-89.inter.net.il [80.230.44.89]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id DIP38122 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 12 May 2006 17:05:46 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 14:19:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Nick Roberts CC: ghost@cs.msu.su, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <17509.54397.736467.479414@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> (message from Nick Roberts on Sun, 14 May 2006 00:43:41 +1200) Subject: Re: CLI and GDB/MI documentation patch Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <17509.54397.736467.479414@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00244.txt.bz2 > From: Nick Roberts > 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?