Re: MI: asynchronous operation details

[Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>]

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.

> Also, you could ask 
> GDB if it is currently busy, to determine if you can send another
> command. That way, you wouldn't have to keep track of the state of GDB,
> you could just always ask it what it's state is.

That would be handy, but if there's "^running" packet in *all* cases where 
inferiour start running (e.g. when "run" is hidden inside user-defined 
command), then keeping track of state of GDB means just a single bool 
variable -- not much. And it GUI, you need to keep track of the state anyway,
so that you can grey out some buttons.

> I'm sure there are other useful features also. 

Still curious what are they ;-)

- Volodya