From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11863 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2006 17:53:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 11855 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jan 2006 17:53:34 -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; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:53:31 +0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([68.9.66.48]) by eastrmmtao04.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20060123175333.CATJ19943.eastrmmtao04.cox.net@localhost.localdomain>; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:53:33 -0500 Received: from bob by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.52) id 1F15t9-0005kn-LD; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 12:53:59 -0500 Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 17:58:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: David Lamy-Charrier , GDB List Subject: Re: breakpoint commands no more working due to MI front-end Message-ID: <20060123175359.GC9308@brasko.net> Mail-Followup-To: David Lamy-Charrier , GDB List References: <6541ed4c0601230241p2646be6bm87251b26a935bb7e@mail.gmail.com> <20060123134952.GA13642@nevyn.them.org> <6541ed4c0601230745o6e063cb6he3ec808e544cd887@mail.gmail.com> <20060123160220.GB16524@nevyn.them.org> <6541ed4c0601230905q50e4a6b1rc8e4659b63589633@mail.gmail.com> <20060123173657.GA20650@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060123173657.GA20650@nevyn.them.org> 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: 2006-01/txt/msg00223.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 12:36:57PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2006 at 06:05:45PM +0100, David Lamy-Charrier wrote: > > Thanks Daniel for the idea, I am going to try it. > > > > But if I am right, mi_execute_command is called to handle MI commands > > from the front-end, so it is already too late to execute the commands > > associated with the breakpoint. > > The commands should have been executed before and the front-end should > > even not be notified that GDB stopped and continued, no? > > That would require a much bigger change to the way GDB works. We've > been talking about some related changes; the general question is > whether the MI front end should know that something other than itself > has caused the inferior to change state. This is vital to have > multiple interpreters active at the same time. > > Given how MI works and is defined today, I don't think breakpoint > commands make a whole lot of sense: your front end should supply the > commands when it sees the breakpoint. Is there a reason you can't make > CDT do that? I think not allowing this would severaly limit the use of GDB for a lot of users. People in general already have an entire set of breakpoint commands written. I don't think it would be a good idea to make the users translate these commands to a FE specific format, especially since each front end would be different. Bob Rossi