From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9192 invoked by alias); 6 May 2006 03:37:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 9184 invoked by uid 22791); 6 May 2006 03:37:38 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 06 May 2006 03:37:37 +0000 Received: from farnswood.snap.net.nz (p202-124-114-183.snap.net.nz [202.124.114.183]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id CC36F74A5F3; Sat, 6 May 2006 15:37:35 +1200 (NZST) Received: by farnswood.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 500) id 6D1BE627ED; Sat, 6 May 2006 04:36:54 +0100 (BST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17500.6613.844359.522607@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 03:37:00 -0000 To: Bob Rossi Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: asynchronous MI output commands In-Reply-To: <20060506024902.GD25114@brasko.net> References: <20060506012706.GA25114@brasko.net> <20060506015903.GA13095@nevyn.them.org> <20060506024902.GD25114@brasko.net> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.0.50.45 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00045.txt.bz2 > I just happened to notice that -exec-next and -interpreter-exec console > next are surprisingly different. > > (gdb) > -exec-next > ^running (gdb) > *stopped,reason="end-stepping-range",thread-id="0",frame={addr="0x0804836b",func="main",args=[{name="argc",value="1"},{name="argv",value="0xbf80e254"}],file="main.c",line="5"} > (gdb) > -interpreter-exec console next > ~"6\t return 0;\n" > ^done > (gdb) The branch that I want to create, when I have proper internet access, will give asynchronous output (*stopped) for both commands. > Is next asynchronuos in 1 case and not the other? They're both synchronous at the moment (the "*stopped" for -exec-next is faked). Bob, I would guess that MI output is likely to continue to change so I would try to factor that into your parser. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob