From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4358 invoked by alias); 6 May 2006 16:40:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 4343 invoked by uid 22791); 6 May 2006 16:40:04 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from eastrmmtao02.cox.net (HELO eastrmmtao02.cox.net) (68.230.240.37) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 06 May 2006 16:40:01 +0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([68.9.66.48]) by eastrmmtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060506163958.BFGU15470.eastrmmtao02.cox.net@localhost.localdomain>; Sat, 6 May 2006 12:39:58 -0400 Received: from bob by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.52) id 1FcPpX-00082C-5M; Sat, 06 May 2006 12:40:31 -0400 Date: Sat, 06 May 2006 19:45:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: gdb@sourceware.org, Nick Roberts Subject: Re: asynchronous MI output commands Message-ID: <20060506164030.GK25114@brasko.net> 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> <20060506114933.GF25114@brasko.net> <20060506152046.GA24267@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060506152046.GA24267@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/msg00057.txt.bz2 On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 11:20:46AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 07:49:34AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote: > > 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. > > Why do you think it is not asynchronous? If you want to be picky about > the grammar, it's an out of band message. ~"GNU gdb 6.1-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 \"i386-linux\"..." ~"Using host libthread_db library \"/lib/libthread_db.so.1\".\n" ~"\n" (gdb) Each of the lines beggining with ~ are an out-of-band-record => stream-record. There is no out-of-band-record => async-record. Certainly having an out-of-band-record => stream-record does not make an MI output command asynchronous. Or does it? The code I wrote to determine if an MI output command is asynchronous checks to see if there is an out-of-band-record=>async-record in the parse tree. If there is, the command is asynchronous, otherwise it's not. Do you disagree with this? Thanks, Bob Rossi