From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21069 invoked by alias); 6 May 2006 11:53:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 21061 invoked by uid 22791); 6 May 2006 11:53:27 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from eastrmmtao03.cox.net (HELO eastrmmtao03.cox.net) (68.230.240.36) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 06 May 2006 11:53:26 +0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([68.9.66.48]) by eastrmmtao03.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060506115323.PQLA15797.eastrmmtao03.cox.net@localhost.localdomain>; Sat, 6 May 2006 07:53:23 -0400 Received: from bob by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.52) id 1FcLMB-0005xx-Vs; Sat, 06 May 2006 07:53:55 -0400 Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 15:20:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Nick Roberts Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: asynchronous MI output commands Message-ID: <20060506115355.GI25114@brasko.net> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20060506012706.GA25114@brasko.net> <20060506015903.GA13095@nevyn.them.org> <20060506024902.GD25114@brasko.net> <17500.6613.844359.522607@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17500.6613.844359.522607@farnswood.snap.net.nz> 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/msg00054.txt.bz2 On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 03:36:53PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote: > > I just happened to notice that -exec-next and -interpreter-exec console > > next are surprisingly different. > > > > (gdb) > > -exec-next > > ^running (gdb) > > *stopped,reason="end-stepping-range",thread-id="0",frame={addr="0x0804836b",func="main",args=[{name="argc",value="1"},{name="argv",value="0xbf80e254"}],file="main.c",line="5"} > > (gdb) > > -interpreter-exec console next > > ~"6\t return 0;\n" > > ^done > > (gdb) > > The branch that I want to create, when I have proper internet access, will > give asynchronous output (*stopped) for both commands. Wow Nick, that would be great. At some point in the near future I might have time to help out with this if you need it. Let me know. > > Is next asynchronuos in 1 case and not the other? > > They're both synchronous at the moment (the "*stopped" for -exec-next is faked). Yeah, I do remember this from last year. I would love to see them become asynchronous. That might be something I work on for mi3 if you don't beat me to it :) > Bob, I would guess that MI output is likely to continue to change so I would > try to factor that into your parser. Thanks for the advice! In a few weeks I'll probably have some reasonable ground work done on the parser, I'll post a link if anyone's interested. Bob Rossi