From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4604 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2006 14:03:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 4594 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Feb 2006 14:03:16 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su (HELO zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su) (158.250.17.23) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 14:03:16 +0000 Received: from Debian-exim by zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su with spam-scanned (Exim 4.50) id 1FA6CS-0002XQ-AO for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:03:13 +0300 Received: from zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su ([158.250.17.23]) by zigzag.lvk.cs.msu.su with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1FA6CJ-0002XA-Sr; Fri, 17 Feb 2006 17:02:59 +0300 From: Vladimir Prus To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: MI: output of -break-insert and -break-watch Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 14:03:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="koi8-r" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200602171702.59498.ghost@cs.msu.su> 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: 2006-02/txt/msg00174.txt.bz2 On Friday 17 February 2006 16:53, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Vladimir Prus > > Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2006 15:37:21 +0300 > > > > The output of -break-insert and -break-watch currently looks like this: > > > > ^done,bkpt={number="1",...... > > > > and > > > > ^done,wpt={number="2",....... > > > > What is exactly the point of using different field names: "bkpt" and > > "wpt"? This makes it impossible to get the number of set breakpoint in a > > uniform fashion -- I need to have some conditional on the type of > > breakpoint, or add logic that checks if "bkpt" or "wpt" is present in > > reply. > > > > Why can't we have just: > > > > ^done,number="1" > > > > ? And this can be done in backward-compatible way, btw. > > How about > > ^done,type="wpt",number="2"... > > or > ^done,bkpt={number="2",type="wpt",... > > instead? That is, with added "type" field? No objections from me. > I think leaving the breakpoint type out might not be a good idea, > since the response might not come in sync with the commands. That is, > you could have sent several commands before you get the first > response. In that case, you will not easily know which response is > for what command. I'm not sure about this. If your really want to send several command, there are two mechanisms: 1. You can use the "token" in original MI command, which will be returne in reply. 2. You can just send the commands anyway, and keep a list of commands for which there's no reply. I believe that the order of replies and commands is the same, so it's easy to match replies with commands. Anyway, extra "type" field won't hurt much. - Volodya