Re: MI output command error

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 04:36:27PM -0500, Bob Rossi wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 04:30:43PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 12, 2005 at 10:03:55AM +1300, Nick Roberts wrote:
> > > 
> > > > I'm as mystified as Dave as to how you could read the manual and
> > > > believe GDB/MI was designed to operate synchronously.  A number of MI
> > > > commands have documentation that begins with "Asynchronous command." In
> > > > particular, look at -exec-interrupt, which makes no sense as a
> > > > synchronous command.
> > > 
> > > I think the problem that people like Bob and myself have with this, is that
> > > when GDB is compiled out of the box, it doesn't operate asynchronously. So
> > > if we run GDB using MI, -exec-interrupt *doesn't* interrupt the inferior:
> > > ...
> > > ^done
> > > (gdb) 
> > > 111-exec-continue
> > > 111^running
> > > (gdb) 
> > > 222-exec-interrupt
> > > 
> > > Dave Korn's explanation is very helpful. Considering the MI output to be
> > > asynchronous, makes it much easier to understand. The fact remains, however,
> > > that for native targets at least (the most common configuration?), operation
> > > is synchronous. It leads me to wonder how this discrepancy arises.
> > 
> > Lack of implementation.  No one's done the work.
> 
> So currently, is it best to realize that the MI protocol is asynchronous,
> but to treat GDB as if it's executing syncronously?
> 
> Basically, send commands to GDB as if the MI interface was synchronous?

I don't know what's best.  I've never implemented anything having to do
with MI.  You, as the man on the ground, get to decide that :-)

"Best" would presumably be to implement async operation in GDB; I have
no idea what's involved.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC