From: Andrew STUBBS <andrew.stubbs@st.com>
To: John Pye <john.pye@anu.edu.au>
Cc: Joel Brobecker <brobecker@adacore.com>, gdb@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: usability: exiting from GDB
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 10:10:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <456EADC6.70403@st.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <456E5704.8060102@anu.edu.au>
John Pye wrote:
> The ctrl-D behaviour is what I would prefer, certainly, and this would
> be more shell-like. But I don't like the confirmation question "Exit
> anyway?".
It *is* precisely shell like. Try this:
bash$ cat &
bash$ <Ctrl-D>
bash says:
There are stopped jobs.
[1]+ Stopped cat
> The hook-quit thing does turn off the confirmation in the case of the
> "q" command, but *does not* work for the ctrl-D exit method.
As advertised.
> I guess the main thing is to get the ctrl-D functionality right.
> Presuming that others agree that this change would be desirable?
I think everyone is agreed that the Ctrl-D behaviour is precisely the
same as that of bash and other shells, with the one exception that it
does not print a line break.
> I find the ctrl-C behaviour unhelpful (ie suggesting I quit instead of
> asking me if I'd like to go ahead and do it) but it's not important really.
The Ctrl-C behaviour is also only cosmetically different. It's hard to
see how to explain this any more clearly than has already been done, but
here goes.
In both cases Ctrl-C interrupts the currently running command:
bash$ cat
<Ctrl-C>
bash$
(gdb) continue
Continuing.
<Ctrl-C>
Program received signal SIGINT, Interrupt.
0xblahblah in ?? ()
(gdb)
In neither case does it quit the "shell".
When you Ctrl-C a continue command it prints a message explaining where
the inferior program has stopped.
When you Ctrl-C another GDB command it prints a message 'Quit' to tell
you that the command exited early, potentially. If no command was
running then the effect is *only* that you see this message. It is *not*
any sort of suggestion. If it did not print those four characters,
'Quit', the behaviour would be exactly the same as bash.
GDB could certainly improve it's Ctrl-C handling - there a many commands
that just can't be interrupted - and perhaps the aesthetics could also
be improved, but in principle it is exactly the same as that used by bash.
Hope that explains it for you
Andrew
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-11-30 10:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-11-27 5:38 John Pye
2006-11-27 6:50 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-11-27 7:43 ` John Pye
2006-11-27 13:42 ` Eli Zaretskii
2006-11-27 13:51 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-11-27 14:46 ` Andrew STUBBS
2006-11-29 3:27 ` John Pye
2006-11-29 4:50 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-11-29 5:04 ` Joel Brobecker
2006-11-29 7:16 ` John Pye
2006-11-29 13:38 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-11-29 14:12 ` Bob Rossi
2006-11-30 4:01 ` John Pye
2006-11-30 8:32 ` Brian Dessent
2006-11-30 11:58 ` John Pye
2006-11-30 12:34 ` Andrew STUBBS
2006-11-30 3:59 ` John Pye
2006-11-30 10:10 ` Andrew STUBBS [this message]
2006-11-30 11:51 ` John Pye
2006-11-30 21:49 ` Michael Snyder
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=456EADC6.70403@st.com \
--to=andrew.stubbs@st.com \
--cc=brobecker@adacore.com \
--cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
--cc=john.pye@anu.edu.au \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox