This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: non-blocking reads/writes and event loops
- To: Jim Ingham <jingham at apple dot com>
- Subject: Re: non-blocking reads/writes and event loops
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at cygnus dot com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 12:29:10 +1000
- CC: gdb at sourceware dot cygnus dot com
- Organization: Cygnus Solutions
- References: <B573AB21.14C0email@example.com>
Jim Ingham wrote:
> > As far as I can tell, this provides all the benefits of fully
> > event-loopizing GDB without the cost of making GDB hugely more complex.
> I don't think that the END RESULT of event loop-izing gdb would be to make
> GDB hugely more complex. In many cases, I think that it would make the
> architecture much simpler and cleaner, since you would not have modal loops
> hiding out all over gdb, but rather a very simple event loop, and,
> hopefully, a standard mechanism for waiting in the event loop that all the
> different modules of gdb could share. Not to say that the PROCESS of
> getting GDB to this point would be easy, as Andrew points out...
Yes, FWIW, an example of code that would benefit from being inverted is
remote.c. remote.c, which is implementing a protocol, should be
implemented using a state machine.