Re: MI: "^running" issues

[Vladimir Prus <ghost@cs.msu.su>]

On Friday 07 September 2007 13:03:57 Nick Roberts wrote:
>  > > The code related to that bug has something to do with async mode,
>  > > but it's pretty unclear why it should be, and how would I test
>  > > that my fixes don't break that async mode.
>  > 
>  > Well, Nick is trying to improve on the async code, perhaps he could
>  > help understand the offending code and find the right fix for the
>  > problem you found.
> 
> I've run Vladimir's example under GDB with my async patch and it also printed a
> ^running record and no *stopped, so perhaps ^running should indeed be printed
> later.  However, the best way to get the right asynchronous MI output is
> probably to develop this code.

Why? It seems to me that outputting "^running" only when the target is
running is completely different matter from being able to enter more
commands when the target is running. I don't see why we can fix "^running" now,
so that folks who are either not interested in asynchronous mode, or don't
like to wait for it, can get right behaviour now?

> I could create another branch for it but I suspect that it wouldn't get looked
> at.  I would like to commit it to mainline after the release but Daniel doesn't
> like this idea as some changes are copied verbatim from Apple.  However, I've
> tried to confine these changes to the "--async" option so that usual
> (synchronous) operation is unchanged.
 
Assuming that 

	http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2006-11/msg00225.html
	http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gdb.patches/31081

are the most recent discussions about your patch, it does not seems like
"copied verbatim from Apple" is the problem. The problem is that is a big patch,
and:

	- I can't find high-level overview of what the patch is trying
	to do, and how it changes gdb behaviour. While a doc patch
	might be premature, some text file would be great.
	- There are no tests to come with the patch, which makes it
	even harder to understand what are you aiming at.

That's pretty much what I was complaining recently -- without a design
doc for async mode it's not only impossible to understand the existing
code, but it's also impossible to understand the code that you're proposing.

- Volodya