Re: [PATCH] Don't send queries to the MI interpreter

[Simon Marchi <simon dot marchi at ericsson dot com>]

On 17-02-10 01:36 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 02/10/2017 06:07 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 02/10/2017 05:44 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
>>
>>> OK, I found the branch.  Pushed here now:
>>>
>>>   https://github.com/palves/gdb/commits/palves/console-pagination
>>
>> And re-reading the branch again, I noticed this hunk:
>>
>> @@ -1255,7 +1258,9 @@ defaulted_query (const char *ctlstr, const char defchar, va_list args)
>>       way, important error messages don't get lost when talking to GDB
>>       over a pipe.  */
>>    if (current_ui->instream != current_ui->stdin_stream
>> -      || !input_interactive_p (current_ui))
>> +      || !input_interactive_p (current_ui)
>> +      /* We can't handle nested queries.  */
>> +      || current_ui != main_ui)
>>      {
>>        old_chain = make_cleanup_restore_target_terminal ();
>>  
>> @@ -2045,36 +2050,48 @@ begin_line (void)
>>      }
>>  }
>>
>> This is similar to your patch, but it handles something your
>> version doesn't, I think.  That is the case of handling the secondary
>> channel being a CLI interpreter, not an MI one, and that UI
>> having been started on a terminal.
> 
> So with with all the rationale I've thrown out, and idea
> that we shouldn't see a query anyway, and considering that
> real MI commands shouldn't really query anyway (nobody sees
> the query output), it may be actually impossible to find
> a way to this with MI on the secondary channel, that will
> remain stable going forward.  Hmm.

I'm not sure I understand this part:

> it may be actually impossible to find
> a way to this with MI on the secondary channel, that will
> remain stable going forward.


> So how about using the hunk shown above, which should handle
> your case as well, and while at it write a test that
> uses CLI in the secondary UI instead, making sure a query
> is auto-answered in that UI?
> 
> Thanks,
> Pedro Alves
> 

That's fine with me.