This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Test no =breakpoint-modified is emitted for modifications from MI commands
- From: Yao Qi <yao at codesourcery dot com>
- To: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- Cc: andre <apoenitz at t-online dot de>, <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sat, 8 Feb 2014 11:37:30 +0800
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Test no =breakpoint-modified is emitted for modifications from MI commands
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1390549587-23625-1-git-send-email-yao at codesourcery dot com> <52F381B0 dot 4010602 at codesourcery dot com> <20140206203936 dot GA7055 at klara dot mpi dot htwm dot de> <52F4A366 dot 6060704 at codesourcery dot com> <20140207161221 dot GA5150 at klara dot mpi dot htwm dot de> <20140208031854 dot GM5485 at adacore dot com>
On 02/08/2014 11:18 AM, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> If we can allow a certain type of usage without damaging consequences
> for the rest of the operations, why not? Wouldn't it simplify the
> notification mechanism too?
>
I am not familiar with the internals of FE, such as Eclipse, so hard to
tell change like this can break FE or not, but ...
> Food for thought:
>
> I think it would be interesting to investigate whether FEs would
> notice if they started receiving those extra notifications. I hope
> the processing would be fast enough that they wouldn't.
... as you said, the investigation to FE should be useful to this
discussion.
>
> One other possible option: Add a new option that would be available
> to all commands to disable notifications related to the command being
> executed. That way, FE could use it to reduce unnecessary back-chatter.
That is what I am thinking about.
> I don't really like that option, though, as it would require a certain
> transition period.
What do you mean by "transition period"? We can make use of
"-list-features" to tell FE that FE can disable/enable MI notifications
through
a certain command.
--
Yao (éå)