From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15523 invoked by alias); 13 Jun 2002 20:55:15 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15505 invoked from network); 13 Jun 2002 20:55:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Jun 2002 20:55:15 -0000 Received: from makita.cygnus.com (makita.sfbay.redhat.com [192.168.30.83]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id NAA27412 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 13:55:14 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (keiths@localhost) by makita.cygnus.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.6.4) with ESMTP id NAA07889 for ; Thu, 13 Jun 2002 13:55:14 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: makita.cygnus.com: keiths owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 13:55:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz X-X-Sender: To: Subject: [MI] -break-insert: (a)synchronous? Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-06/txt/msg00103.txt.bz2 Hi, Ok, I believe that there was some general consensus that we want asynchronus event notifications. Do we also want only one channel for the notification of these events? It seems to me that we've got ways to communicate the breakpoint-create event: events and commands. Right now, -break-insert overrides the event handlers so that it can grab the data about the breakpoint when it is created, but inserting a breakpoint via another interpreter (like the console) will send something slightly different: (gdb) -break-insert main ^done,bkpt={number="1",type="breakpoint",disp="keep",enabled="y",addr="0x08075056",func="main",file="../../src/gdb/main.c",line="734",times="0"} (gdb) -interpreter-exec console "break captured_main" During symbol reading, couldn't parse type; debugger out of date?. During symbol reading, bad structure-type format. *"breakpoint-create,number=1" Breakpoint 1 at 0x80743ba: file ../../src/gdb/main.c, line 122. ^done (gdb) (Ok, so we could also just add the "bkpt=..." info that is being used in -break-insert onto this command, but in any case, we get no "event" when inserting via -break-insert.) I would prefer that we use only event notifications, of course. That way, the the UI could call -break-info on these events to collect the information. This way, I only have to write one parser to deal with this event. (Actually, if I had to deal with both, I would just grab the breakpoint number from the output of -break-insert.) Am I being too aggressive/naive? Keith