From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8200 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2014 11:46:12 -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 8105 invoked by uid 89); 25 Mar 2014 11:46:11 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 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; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:46:10 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s2PBk7Z3031364 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 25 Mar 2014 07:46:07 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s2PBk5XB025140; Tue, 25 Mar 2014 07:46:06 -0400 Message-ID: <53316C7C.6070206@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:46:00 -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: <53308FE0.7080200@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <53308FE0.7080200@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-03/txt/msg00065.txt.bz2 On 03/24/2014 08:04 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > 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? Yes, that's what's happening. I'm testing a fix. -- Pedro Alves