Re: MI query questions

[Bob Rossi <bob_rossi@cox.net>]

On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 09:30:00AM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote:
>  > > I suggest, for the moment, at least, that we make MI select "[1] all"
>  > > automatically in this case.
>  > 
>  > Nick,
>  > 
>  > I don't think this solves the problem though. As Daniel pointed out,
>  > 
>  > -interpreter-exec console "b A::func"
>  > 
>  > will cause the same problem, and needs to be addressed. I haven't
>  > thought this through well enough though.
> 
> Well, I guess it depends whether the existing behaviour breaks the front
> end or not i.e when the prompt ">" appears will it know that GDB wants
> more input or not?  If the answer is yes (I've not tried it) then things
> can be left as they are.  If its no, then something should be done and the
> solution being proposed doesn't sound like a quick fix.
> 
> "-interpreter-exec console "b A::func" could presumably be made to behave
> as "-break-insert A::func".  Witness pending breakpoints:

I wouldn't like to change the behavior of the CLI commands. This would
be confusing to users and I don't think they would like it at all.

> (gdb)
> -break-insert fgfg
> &"Function \"fgfg\" not defined.\n"
> ^done
> (gdb)
> -interpreter-exec console "b ghgh"
> &"Function \"ghgh\" not defined.\n"
> ~"Breakpoint 1 (ghgh) pending.\n"
> ^done
> (gdb)
> inf bre
> &"inf bre\n"
> ~"Num Type           Disp Enb Address    What\n"
> ~"1   breakpoint     keep y   <PENDING>  ghgh\n"
> ^done
> (gdb)
> 
> For the CLI command "break" the behaviour seems to be reversed but it's
> no longer a query.

I think this is a bug in GDB that there is no longer a query. The user
is going to want to know why they are not prompted when using the FE,
but they are prompted when using GDB. I think this is a step backwards,
not forwards.

Bob Rossi