Re: MI query questions

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Mon, May 29, 2006 at 08:23:37AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> The first small issue is that the '[1] all\n' choice is on the same
> line as the [0] choice.

That's because the ~"" blocks come from individual calls to printf.

> The second issue is how GDB outputs a final ">" line. This isn't a valid
> GDB/MI Output record/command. At least, I don't think it is. If I select
> an option, then I get this

> Which looks pretty good to me. So the problem is, the line ">"
> apparently means to get input from the user. This isn't specified in the
> MI OUTPUT record. Should we change the OUTPUT record to represent
> interactive commands?

I don't really think we should shoehorn these queries into MI.  It
would make more sense to me to have it do something MI-like.  For
example, not set any breakpoint, but return a more exact list of places
the breakpoint could be placed.  If you want the query behavior, you
could of course use interpreter-exec :-)

I dunno what that new response would look like, and I'm not especially
interested in working it out; just sharing my opinion.  The > bit is
very un-MI, and e.g. it prevents pipelining MI commands.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery