Re: MI output command error

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 11:08:52AM -0500, 'Bob Rossi' wrote:
> > > That's why I think the output
> > > 
> > >    (gdb)
> > >    444-exec-continue
> > >    444*running
> > >    444*stopped...
> > >    (gdb)
> > > 
> > > is better.
> > 
> >   Well, you're wrong.  "running" is the output from the exec-continue
> > command and it is synchronous: the exec-continue command executes, starts up
> > the inferior, prints out "running", and is then complete.  At that point the
> > inferior is running, but regardless of that, gdb is ready to take more
> > commands and so should prompt you.  
> 
> It is? It is still busy executing the inferior. I was under the
> impression GDB was somehow "busy" while executing the inferior. Is this
> not true?

Not necessarily; some targets are asynhronous.

> > The "stopped" output is an asynchronous
> > notification of an event that occurred while the inferior was running, but
> > that in no sense makes it output from the "exec-continue" command.  
> 
> Well, GDB says that it is output from the -exec-continue command. It's 
> asyncronous output. That's why the TOKEN 444 is before the *stopped.

If it is asynchronous, that presumably means GDB is willing to accept
input.... by definition even.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC