This is the mail archive of the gdb-prs@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

[Bug mi/20045] With mi-async on, -exec-continue outputs two (gdb) prompts


https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20045

--- Comment #8 from Simon Marchi <simon.marchi at ericsson dot com> ---
(In reply to Pedro Alves from comment #5)
> > Anyway, it seems to me like this condition could only be 
> >
> >  if (sync_execution)
> >
> > Basically, if we are emulating a synchronous MI command, output the bogus 
> > (gdb).  When using mi-async off, sync_execution will be false, so we will 
> > never output it.  The result is this for mi-async off:
> 
> I think you meant "When using mi-async on, sync_execution will be false".

Oops, yes.

> But when "maint set target-async off" (i.e., on targets that don't do
> async), sync_execution will be off, even with sync commands.

I didn't think about that.  Does that mean that having mi-async on is
impossible with sync targets?  That would make sense, since when the target is
busy waiting on the target, it can't process MI commands. 

> This patch from the console series replaces that with a single enum that
> works the same for async and sync targets, so probably fixes this:
> 
>   https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-02/msg00080.html
> 
> (haven't tried yet)

I tested with your console series (both palves/console-submit and
palves/console-v3), and it indeed works fine on that.  You are always two steps
ahead of the rest of the world!

> Though I think an easier and safe-for-7.11.1-even fix would be to call
> target_can_async instead of target_is_async here.

Is it a good idea to change such a behavior on a .1 release though?  If a
front-end has to do something special to cope with the additional prompt on
7.11 (which I doubt, since we didn't have any bug reports from front-end
developers, but still), it would make things even more complicated for them if
7.11.1 had a different behavior than 7.11.  Given that it's a mostly harmless
bug, I suggest we leave all 7.11 gdbs behaving the same, and fix it for 7.12. 
WDYT?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]