Re: MI output command error

['Bob Rossi' <bob at brasko dot net>]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 04:48:32PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote:
> ----Original Message----
> >From: Daniel Jacobowitz
> >Sent: 10 March 2005 16:33
> 
> > On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 04:22:50PM -0000, Dave Korn wrote:
> >>  Do you actually know what
> >> the terms "asynchronous" and "synchronous" mean, or were you just kind of
> >> skimming over bits that didn't make any sense to you as you read the
> >> docs? 
> > 
> > Same rules apply to you as anyone else, Dave.  Please make an effort to
> > be polite on this list.
> 
>   Sorry Bob, and all, that wasn't meant to sound quite how it came out.  Let
> me try and explain myself better.
> 
>   It's common enough, when people are reading very technical documents and
> come across technical terms that they aren't familiar with, to try and make
> sense of the documentation by skipping over the unknown jargon and trying to
> make sense of the rest of the context around it.
> 
>   This is a reasonable strategy that works well enough often enough that
> that's why people use it, but sometimes (as in the difference between
> 'synchronous' and 'asynchronous') it may lead people to overlook a subtle
> distinction that radically changes the final meaning of the
> sentence/paragraph/whatever.
> 
>   So it occurred to me that maybe Bob had just skimmed over that bit,
> without realising the significance of the term, and I was _trying_ just to
> ask in a straightforward fashion if that was what had happened.  Pardon me
> for not finding a more finely-worded way of asking the question, but it
> wasn't in any sense meant to be a flame.  (Please note how I didn't use any
> insults, swearwords, or pejoratives; it really was just a straight
> question).

Thanks Dave, I also thought you were a little angry at me too :)
No hard feelings.

So, I see your point now. See, I've never used GDB with the -async
flag, or when GDB was actually acting asyncronously. When I read the
term 'asyncronous/syncronous' I read them as 'getting data you didn't
ask for/getting data you did ask for'.

Now I have a whole slew of questions that I need the answer to, this
could probably go right up on the doco under, FE FAQ.

What is the intention of the -async flag as it relates to GDB/MI? 
What problem does it solve(why is it needed)?
Will GDB use it's asyncronous behavior by default on some systems?
   or do I have to explicitly tell it to act that way?
Are MI FE developers supposed to be using the -async flat?

See, as I'm working on improving the MI testsuite, I didn't even come
across the async flag, which tells me that it is completely untested.
Should it be tested or should MI FE developers not be using it?

Thanks,
Bob Rossi