From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21888 invoked by alias); 10 Mar 2005 17:03:31 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 21580 invoked from network); 10 Mar 2005 17:03:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakermmtao10.cox.net) (68.230.240.29) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 10 Mar 2005 17:03:20 -0000 Received: from white ([68.9.64.121]) by lakermmtao10.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.04.00 201-2131-118-20041027) with ESMTP id <20050310170316.VXOI29924.lakermmtao10.cox.net@white>; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:03:16 -0500 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1D9R4A-0003mI-00; Thu, 10 Mar 2005 12:03:18 -0500 Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 17:03:00 -0000 From: 'Bob Rossi' To: Dave Korn Cc: 'Daniel Jacobowitz' , 'Karganov Konstantin' , 'GDB' Subject: Re: MI output command error Message-ID: <20050310170318.GD14061@white> Mail-Followup-To: Dave Korn , 'Daniel Jacobowitz' , 'Karganov Konstantin' , 'GDB' References: <20050310163329.GA15132@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i X-SW-Source: 2005-03/txt/msg00114.txt.bz2 On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 04:48:32PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote: > ----Original Message---- > >From: Daniel Jacobowitz > >Sent: 10 March 2005 16:33 > > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 04:22:50PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote: > >> Do you actually know what > >> the terms "asynchronous" and "synchronous" mean, or were you just kind of > >> skimming over bits that didn't make any sense to you as you read the > >> docs? > > > > Same rules apply to you as anyone else, Dave. Please make an effort to > > be polite on this list. > > Sorry Bob, and all, that wasn't meant to sound quite how it came out. Let > me try and explain myself better. > > It's common enough, when people are reading very technical documents and > come across technical terms that they aren't familiar with, to try and make > sense of the documentation by skipping over the unknown jargon and trying to > make sense of the rest of the context around it. > > This is a reasonable strategy that works well enough often enough that > that's why people use it, but sometimes (as in the difference between > 'synchronous' and 'asynchronous') it may lead people to overlook a subtle > distinction that radically changes the final meaning of the > sentence/paragraph/whatever. > > So it occurred to me that maybe Bob had just skimmed over that bit, > without realising the significance of the term, and I was _trying_ just to > ask in a straightforward fashion if that was what had happened. Pardon me > for not finding a more finely-worded way of asking the question, but it > wasn't in any sense meant to be a flame. (Please note how I didn't use any > insults, swearwords, or pejoratives; it really was just a straight > question). Thanks Dave, I also thought you were a little angry at me too :) No hard feelings. So, I see your point now. See, I've never used GDB with the -async flag, or when GDB was actually acting asyncronously. When I read the term 'asyncronous/syncronous' I read them as 'getting data you didn't ask for/getting data you did ask for'. Now I have a whole slew of questions that I need the answer to, this could probably go right up on the doco under, FE FAQ. What is the intention of the -async flag as it relates to GDB/MI? What problem does it solve(why is it needed)? Will GDB use it's asyncronous behavior by default on some systems? or do I have to explicitly tell it to act that way? Are MI FE developers supposed to be using the -async flat? See, as I'm working on improving the MI testsuite, I didn't even come across the async flag, which tells me that it is completely untested. Should it be tested or should MI FE developers not be using it? Thanks, Bob Rossi