Re: MI non-stop mode spec

[Pawel Piech <pawel.piech@windriver.com>]

Vladimir Prus wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for agreeing :-)  Like I said, I have no idea of the complexity
>> of such a change.  However, it seems to me that you should be able to
>> implement a simple protcol-state-tracking logic for both CLI and MI
>> protocols, and simply simulate the --thread option for commands that
>> don't supply one.  This way you could have both the backward compatible
>> stateful protocol, and have the -thread option to override it on the
>> individual commands.
>>     
>
> This might be actually a reasonable thing. On one thing, not switching
> the current thread might be good for CLI. On the other hand, I still believe
> that --thread is ultimately better solution for MI. Then, it might be best to
> make GDB not to switch threads (benefiting CLI and stateful MI), and
> also accept --thread for the benefit of newer MI clients.
>
> Now there's the catch that --thread is already implemented and is rather
> straightforward, whereas I expect some corner cases in implementing thread
> that does not change. I think we'll first get the non-stop mode working
> with --thread, and then look into making current thread not change. 
> (For avoidance of doubt, "then" means "immediately after" not "someday").
>   

I think this would be an excellent compromise.  If there is any kind of 
a layering between the protocol interpreter and the underlying 
functions, it shouldn't be too much of a stretch to add the state 
tracking in the protocol interpreter layer.  BTW, for the clients that 
support both a UI and a command console it would be even even better if 
CLI and MI maintained their own current thread and stack frame.  This 
would prevent the two interfaces from interfering with each other.

Cheers,
Pawel