From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Bjarke Viksoe <bviksoe@hotmail.com>
Cc: gdb@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: asynchronous MI output commands
Date: Sun, 07 May 2006 22:50:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060507220145.GA19231@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <BAY111-F52DA19D048441A185E919A0AB0@phx.gbl>
On Sun, May 07, 2006 at 11:40:54PM +0200, Bjarke Viksoe wrote:
> >Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >
> >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?
>
> No, the abstraction layer is exactly my design - but as I explained: the
> goal of my tool is that it's used over a remote line (eg. SSH over
> internet) where the answer can be a couple of 100ms delayed. It is most
> desirable to be able to send multiple commands and have the front-end
> digest the answer as they slowly arrive - updating the UI in increments.
> Yes, my views need to send multiple -var-evaluate-expression and this is
> the reason that I'm forced to restrict the design to what you describe. The
> reason it's not good enough: it so slow.
>
> Because of the latency, my "abstraction layer" runs in its own thread. This
> makes the UI wonderfully responsive, but doesn?t allow a component/view to
> submit a command and read the answer in the same context. Answers arrive
> out of context and are processed separately - creating a high need to know
> what the answer originated from.
Sorry, but I don't feel like you've answered my question. Why does
this interfere with pipelining?
Thread A:
- gdb_thread.submit_question("-var-evaluate-expression A")
Thread B:
- gdb_thread.submit_question("-var-evaluate-expression B")
GDB thread:
- Send "-var-evaluate-expression A". Record this as an outstanding
request.
- Send "-var-evaluate-expression B". Record this as an outstanding
request.
- Notice that data is available.
- Parse it, and notice that it is a response to a command. Take the
first command off the queue of outstanding requests. See that it
is -var-evaluate-expression A. Return the answer to that request's
submission object, in whatever way you need to.
- Notice that more data is available... etc.
If this isn't workable, can you fill in the piece I'm missing? Why
not? Each command should generate a single synchronous (^done, ^error)
response.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-05-07 22:01 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 54+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-05-07 22:30 Bjarke Viksoe
2006-05-07 22:50 ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2006-05-08 0:36 ` Bjarke Viksoe
2006-05-08 1:52 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-05-11 10:31 ` MI: anynchronous vs. synchronous Vladimir Prus
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-05-12 0:19 asynchronous MI output commands Alain Magloire
2006-05-11 15:02 Alain Magloire
2006-05-11 15:42 ` Bob Rossi
2006-05-11 16:40 ` Jim Ingham
2006-05-11 17:03 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-05-11 17:35 ` Jim Ingham
2006-05-11 19:24 ` Bob Rossi
2006-05-11 19:25 ` Jim Ingham
2006-05-10 22:15 Alain Magloire
2006-05-11 3:41 ` Bob Rossi
2006-05-11 8:58 ` Vladimir Prus
2006-05-11 10:48 ` Bob Rossi
2006-05-11 10:52 ` Vladimir Prus
2006-05-11 11:14 ` Bob Rossi
2006-05-11 12:50 ` Vladimir Prus
2006-05-11 14:50 ` Bob Rossi
2006-05-09 9:46 Alain Magloire
[not found] <1147034156.28828.ezmlm@sourceware.org>
2006-05-07 21:27 ` Bjarke Viksoe
2006-05-07 21:41 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-05-10 12:43 ` Vladimir Prus
2006-05-06 1:26 Bob Rossi
2006-05-06 1:59 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-05-06 2:48 ` Bob Rossi
2006-05-06 3:37 ` Nick Roberts
2006-05-06 15:20 ` Bob Rossi
2006-05-06 4:06 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-05-06 4:05 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-05-06 11:53 ` Bob Rossi
2006-05-06 12:06 ` Bob Rossi
2006-05-06 3:14 ` Bob Rossi
2006-05-06 4:04 ` Nick Roberts
2006-05-06 11:49 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-05-06 11:50 ` Bob Rossi
2006-05-06 16:52 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-05-06 19:45 ` Bob Rossi
2006-05-06 20:37 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-05-07 0:44 ` Bob Rossi
2006-05-07 20:35 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-05-07 20:42 ` Bob Rossi
2006-05-07 22:01 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-05-08 1:22 ` Bob Rossi
2006-05-08 2:03 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-05-09 21:48 ` Bob Rossi
2006-05-08 6:38 ` Nick Roberts
2006-05-08 11:28 ` Bob Rossi
2006-05-08 1:26 ` Bob Rossi
2006-05-06 11:51 ` Bob Rossi
2006-05-06 3:27 ` Nick Roberts
2006-05-06 16:40 ` Bob Rossi
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20060507220145.GA19231@nevyn.them.org \
--to=drow@false.org \
--cc=bviksoe@hotmail.com \
--cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox