From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26258 invoked by alias); 24 Mar 2014 20:04:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 26246 invoked by uid 89); 24 Mar 2014 20:04:55 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 20:04:54 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s2OK4oMU013482 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 24 Mar 2014 16:04:51 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s2OK4m1m019551; Mon, 24 Mar 2014 16:04:49 -0400 Message-ID: <53308FE0.7080200@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2014 20:04:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans CC: gdb Subject: Re: Is gdb script execution intended to work this way in async mode? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-03/txt/msg00064.txt.bz2 On 03/22/2014 12:13 AM, Doug Evans wrote: > Hi. > If I source a script in target-async mode, non-asynchronous execution > commands "finish" immediately in the sense that the following command > in the script is done before the previous command has completed (in > the expected sense - the command completes immediately, so to speak, > but continuations are registered to perform the rest of the command, > e.g. to keep stepping until a "next" has fully completed). > > I hope this is a bug. Yes. set target-async on/off is supposed to be transparent. The only difference should be that "set target-async on" enables more features. I thought this was fixed, but looks like not... Sounds like we forget to clear interpreter_async while running the script? -- Pedro Alves