From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27808 invoked by alias); 11 May 2006 10:31:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 27774 invoked by uid 22791); 11 May 2006 10:31:00 -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; Thu, 11 May 2006 10:30:56 +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 <20060511103053.FRHO16402.eastrmmtao06.cox.net@localhost.localdomain>; Thu, 11 May 2006 06:30:53 -0400 Received: from bob by localhost.localdomain with local (Exim 4.52) id 1Fe8SC-0007pI-Oc; Thu, 11 May 2006 06:31:32 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 May 2006 10:46:00 -0000 From: Bob Rossi To: Nick Roberts Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: CLI commands in MI Message-ID: <20060511103132.GD3727@brasko.net> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20060511022650.GA3727@brasko.net> <17506.54099.147732.205664@farnswood.snap.net.nz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <17506.54099.147732.205664@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/msg00127.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 06:01:55PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote: > Bob Rossi writes: > > I'm thinking it would be a good idea to remove the ability to enter CLI > > commands into the MI interpreter. Does anyone disagree? > > Yes. I find it very convenient to see whats going on. To get to a given > execution state its easier type the CLI command directly, rather than the MI > one which is generally longer and doesn't allow abbreviations, or prefix > everything with -interpreter-exec. OK, well maybe if someone types a CLI command, internally we make it do the same thing -interpreter-exec console ... does? That would still make me happy. Although I read below you said that's the case. Either it's not the case, or it is and my GDB is old. I'll have to investigate. > > I think the only thing it can cause is confusion. Especially since > > entering the '-exec-run' command gives different results than the > > '-interpreter-exec console "r"' command which gives different results > > than the 'r' command. > > I don't how you can say that as directly entered CLI commands now (implicitly) > use -interpreter-exec console. AFAICS the only difference is the extra &"r\n". Hmmm, that's not the case for me. Is this becase I'm using an older version of GDB? $ gdb --version GNU gdb 6.3-debian (gdb) b main &"b main\n" ^done (gdb) r &"r\n" ^done,reason="breakpoint-hit",bkptno="1",thread-id="0",frame={addr="0x08048364",func="main",args=[{name="argc",value="1"},{name="argv",value="0xbf9d1464"}],file="main.c",line="4"} (gdb) (gdb) -interpreter-exec console "b main" ~"Breakpoint 1 at 0x8048364: file main.c, line 4.\n" ^done (gdb) -interpreter-exec console "r" ~"Starting program: /home/bob/cvs/gdbmi/builddir/src/main \n" ~"\n" ~"Breakpoint 1, main (argc=1, argv=0xbfbcd7a4) at main.c:4\n" ~"4\t argc = 1;\n" ^done (gdb) > > Now that -interpreter-exec is available, is there any reason beyond > > trying to confuse us all that console commands are allowed? > > No one is forcing you to use it. Why would you want to force others not > to use it? Because it's a totally useless feature that gives incorrect results. Also, FE's might actually use it! Bob Rossi