This is the mail archive of the
gdb-prs@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
[Bug cli/17222] New: printf_filtered vs printf_unfiltered
- From: "dje at google dot com" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: gdb-prs at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 01 Aug 2014 16:58:54 +0000
- Subject: [Bug cli/17222] New: printf_filtered vs printf_unfiltered
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=17222
Bug ID: 17222
Summary: printf_filtered vs printf_unfiltered
Product: gdb
Version: HEAD
Status: NEW
Severity: minor
Priority: P2
Component: cli
Assignee: unassigned at sourceware dot org
Reporter: dje at google dot com
[this is more than just a cli issue, but figured it's as good a component as
any]
This pr was triggered by this code in infrun.c:
if (cmd_done
&& !was_sync
&& exec_done_display_p
&& (ptid_equal (inferior_ptid, null_ptid)
|| !is_running (inferior_ptid)))
printf_unfiltered (_("completed.\n"));
Why printf_unfiltered?
At the least it would be good to add some docs somewhere (internals manual?
utils.[ch]?) guidelines for when to use one or the other.
That reminded me of another issue.
We go to some lengths to make sure we've done target_terminal_ours_for_output
before we print something (in cases where the terminal might be owned by the
inferior), but we don't make any similar effort for debugging output (nor
should we, at least in the general case). But it's not clear to me what the
consequences of this, if any, are. We should get that documented somewhere.
And if there are no consequences, let's still get that documented. [And if it
is already documented, awesome. I skimmed utils.[ch] and the wiki and didn't
find anything.]
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.