From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1568 invoked by alias); 8 May 2006 02:03:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 1256 invoked by uid 22791); 8 May 2006 02:02:56 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from eastrmmtao06.cox.net (HELO eastrmmtao06.cox.net) (68.230.240.33) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 May 2006 02:02:49 +0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain ([68.9.66.48]) by eastrmmtao06.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.01 201-2131-130-101-20060113) with ESMTP id <20060508020246.NWDM16402.eastrmmtao06.cox.net@localhost.localdomain>; Sun, 7 May 2006 22:02:46 -0400 Received: from bob by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.52) id 1Fcv5f-0006nj-Vw; Sun, 07 May 2006 22:03:16 -0400 Date: Mon, 08 May 2006 11:28:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Nick Roberts Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: asynchronous MI output commands Message-ID: <20060508020315.GA24919@brasko.net> References: <20060506114933.GF25114@brasko.net> <20060506152046.GA24267@nevyn.them.org> <20060506164030.GK25114@brasko.net> <20060506165249.GA25972@nevyn.them.org> <20060506194618.GL25114@brasko.net> <20060506203741.GA29439@nevyn.them.org> <20060507004518.GM25114@brasko.net> <20060507212711.GA18344@nevyn.them.org> <20060508002935.GN25114@brasko.net> <17502.42056.466500.495231@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17502.42056.466500.495231@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/msg00077.txt.bz2 On Mon, May 08, 2006 at 01:52:08PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote: > > Anyways, Daniel, thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule to > > think about this issue. If you simply don't want something like this in > > MI right now, I'll find a way to match the input with the output. > > I must say that I agree with Daniel. I think that by trying to classify the > output as synchronous/asynchronous you're creating a problem, not solving one. OK. Thanks Nick and Daniel! I'll work with what I've got for now. I appreciate the effort and the resources you both put into this. If I run into a wall, I'll let you know. Bob Rossi