From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4837 invoked by alias); 22 Nov 2005 14:00:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 4827 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Nov 2005 14:00:38 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from eastrmmtao04.cox.net (HELO eastrmmtao04.cox.net) (68.230.240.35) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:00:37 +0000 Received: from white ([68.9.65.164]) by eastrmmtao04.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20051122135850.GYBO4997.eastrmmtao04.cox.net@white>; Tue, 22 Nov 2005 08:58:50 -0500 Received: from bob by white with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1EeYgv-0005a7-00; Tue, 22 Nov 2005 09:00:13 -0500 Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 14:00:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MI: asynchronous operation details Message-ID: <20051122140013.GB21354@white> Mail-Followup-To: Vladimir Prus , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200511221520.24163.ghost@cs.msu.su> <20051122133831.GA21354@white> <200511221649.23598.ghost@cs.msu.su> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200511221649.23598.ghost@cs.msu.su> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i 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: 2005-11/txt/msg00481.txt.bz2 On Tue, Nov 22, 2005 at 04:49:22PM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote: > On Tuesday 22 November 2005 16:38, Bob Rossi wrote: > > > > > This is a feature that does not currently work. However, it's possible > > > > that Nick Roberts work will address some of this lack of functionality. > > > > If not, I'm sure in the future, either I (you) or someone else will > > > > eventually get this working. > > > > > > Ok, but -- why do I ever want to issue commands while inferior is > > > running? For which kind of commands is that useful? > > > > You could interupt the inferior, to tell it to stop. I think that would > > be equivalent to typing ^c at the console now. > > Well, exactly. I can do "^C" today, so nothing gained at all. Well, clearly sending the ^C is not as nice as the MI -exec-interrupt command. The former is simply legacy from a console driven front end. It's not intuitive. > > I'm sure there are other useful features also. > > Still curious what are they ;-) If you look in the documentation, the 'Asynchronous command.' will be next to each command that is supposed to support an asynchronous style command. For example: -exec-interrupt Asynchronous command. Interrupts the background execution of the target. ... Bob Rossi