From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18418 invoked by alias); 6 May 2006 11:49:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 18410 invoked by uid 22791); 6 May 2006 11:49:07 -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; Sat, 06 May 2006 11:49:04 +0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([68.9.66.48]) by eastrmmtao04.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060506114902.FCOI9931.eastrmmtao04.cox.net@localhost.localdomain>; Sat, 6 May 2006 07:49:02 -0400 Received: from bob by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.52) id 1FcLHy-0005vM-Bd; Sat, 06 May 2006 07:49:34 -0400 Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 11:50:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Nick Roberts , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: asynchronous MI output commands Message-ID: <20060506114933.GF25114@brasko.net> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20060506012706.GA25114@brasko.net> <20060506015903.GA13095@nevyn.them.org> <20060506031435.GE25114@brasko.net> <17500.8198.679332.240864@farnswood.snap.net.nz> <20060506040637.GA14894@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060506040637.GA14894@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2006-05/txt/msg00050.txt.bz2 On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 12:06:37AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 04:03:18PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote: > > Can't you just consider it as output? What would your parser do differently > > if it was classed as one or other? > > > > I think making the output asynchronous just determines how the front end can > > interact with GDB, not its content. > > Correct. I think that "asynchronous" is a loaded term; it has too many > meanings, most of which don't apply here. Synchronous output is the > response to a command. Right, synchronous is a response to a command. That's also the definition I was using. However the initial output is not a response to a command and it also does not semantically end up being asynchronous. I think this case doesn't make any sense. It should probably be something like, $ gdb -i=mi ~"GNU gdb 6.3-debian\n" ~"Copyright 2004 Free Software Foundation, Inc.\n" ~"GDB is free software, covered by the GNU General Public License, and you are\n" ~"welcome to change it and/or distribute copies of it under certain conditions.\n" ~"Type \"show copying\" to see the conditions.\n" ~"There is absolutely no warranty for GDB. Type \"show warranty\" for details.\n" ~"This GDB was configured as \"i486-linux-gnu\"." ~"\n" *db-started (gdb) Are there any other cases like this? If not, do you mind if I make this change? BTW, I'm not trying to rock the boat here, I'm just trying to understand how to classify each MI output command that I'm looking at. Thanks, Bob Rossi