RE: filtering of commands during async operation

Newman, Mark (N-Superior Technical Resource Inc)
2003-11-06T14:32:32Z

Three things

To answer your question about async native I am working on all aspects
of async - however at the current time I am concentrating on remote with
tracepoints.

Next a request - Could you add "tfind", "tdump", "tstart", and "tstop"
to the list of acceptable commands? I know that if I am using
tracepoints to monitor what is going on in a system I don't want to wait
and hope that whatever event I am monitoring for occurs. I want to be
able to look at the tracepoints while they are occurring.

Finally - would it be better to place a flag in command_list_element and
avoid all of the strcmp's altogether?

Mark Newman

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elena Zannoni [mailto:ezannoni@redhat.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 05, 2003 6:12 PM
> To: Grant Edwards
> Cc: Doug Evans; Newman, Mark (N-Superior Technical Resource Inc);
> gdb@sources.redhat.com
> Subject: Re: filtering of commands during async operation
>
>
> Grant Edwards writes:
> >
> > > Good example of why it's useful to avoid using ! with strcmp.
> > >
> > > > The code should be:
> > > >
> > > > if (event_loop_p && target_can_async_p () &&
> target_executing) {
> > > > if (!(strcmp (c->name, "help") == 0)
> > > > && !(strcmp (c->name, "pwd") == 0)
> > > > && !(strcmp (c->name, "show") == 0)
> > > > && !(strcmp (c->name, "stop") == 0)) {
> > > > error ("Cannot execute this command while the
> target is running.");
> > > > }
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > Unless someone objects I am going to put in a bug
> report and a patch.
> > >
> > > Why not just strcmp () != 0
> >
> > Why not just strcmp() ?
> >
> > if (strcmp()
> > && strcmp()
> > && strcmp())
> >
>
> Whoops. I agree, this is screwed up. I'll just make the fix now, no
> need to file a bug report. I am curious, did somebody get async
> native to work? So far there is only the remote async target. I do
> remember testing this, back 4 years ago, maybe the logic got turned
> around at some point.
>
> I think strcmp != 0 is ok. It is the preferred form in gdb. Is
> this in the ARI? mmmm... partially it is. It is not flagged in the
> counts though.
>
> elena
>
>