From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26142 invoked by alias); 7 May 2006 21:13:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 26134 invoked by uid 22791); 7 May 2006 21:13:59 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Sun, 07 May 2006 21:13:58 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FcqZg-0004hY-9v for gdb@sourceware.org; Sun, 07 May 2006 17:13:56 -0400 Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 21:41:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: asynchronous MI output commands Message-ID: <20060507211356.GA18033@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org References: <1147034156.28828.ezmlm@sourceware.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i 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/msg00066.txt.bz2 On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 11:09:51PM +0200, Bjarke Viksoe wrote: > In my case I wish to submit several commands at once and slowly digest the > answer (over a remote line where the network round-trip is slow). Using the > is clumsy and doesn't solve the problem of having enough > information to process the answer without keeping track of the question. > Since separate components handle the output autonomously, I had to give up > tracking a command-list, and instead had to make sure only 1 question was > lingering - thus making the entire solution run much slower than otherwise > needed. > > I found that commands that return "^value" result-records (such as > -var-evaluate-expression and -data-evaluate-expression) doesn't carry > enough information. I don't think a model where the entire command is > repeated in the output is a desirable design, but at least identifying the > question-type and its crucial parameters would suffice. If I were writing a front-end, I would have an arbitration layer which sent questions to GDB and received answers. The answers will come back one at a time, in the same order the questions were asked. If you send two -var-evaluate-expression commands, you'll get back two answers, in that same order. Am I missing something? Is there a reason that this isn't enough? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery