Re: filtering of commands during async operation

[Elena Zannoni <ezannoni at redhat dot com>]

Jim Ingham writes:
 > Elena,
 > 
 > On Nov 6, 2003, at 11:41 AM, Elena Zannoni wrote:
 > 
 > > Jim Ingham writes:
 > >> The all the targets we support in Apple's  version of gdb are async -
 > >> including the Mach-O native target.  It took a bunch of mucking around
 > >> to get it working (and to get things like commands that run the target
 > >> working).  And I am pretty sure that I broke the remote async in the
 > >> process, however, there were a couple of hacks in there (marked as 
 > >> such
 > >> in the code) that messed us up and I didn't have the patience at the
 > >> time to make both work...
 > >>
 > >> So I would need to do some clean-up before our code would be ready for
 > >> submission, but as a proof of concept it might be useful to folks, and
 > >> in our system it works pretty well.
 > >>
 > >
 > > It seems to have become some kind of a pattern that somebody other
 > > than Apple is going to merge Apple's changes with the FSF mainline.  Is
 > > there any way to get another snapshot/tarball (like it was done in Dec
 > > 2001)?  Maybe somebody will volunteer, even though this approach is
 > > suboptimal.
 > >
 > 
 > We had one brief period where we got a little time to try merging 
 > sources, but that passed without much result, and I don't see us 
 > getting another chance in the near future.

Exactly, that's why I said that somebody else will be more likely to
do it.

 > 
 > The last time we did a tarball drop it meant that Adam ended up wasting 
 > time merging old ObjC code into the TOT gdb - work which we had already 
 > done on our branch.  It would be great not to do that again...
 > 

the objc support is in gdb mainline and it has been there for a while.
There are some bugs still, but it was merged.
Are you referring to something else?

Same story for the interpreter stuff which Keith, Andrew and I merged.

I think we went through this before, with the previoius tarball.  If
it's too hard a requirement, then let's forget about it. We'll live
with the status quo. 

elena

 > Jim
 > 
 > 
 > > elena
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > >> Jim
 > >>
 > >> On Nov 6, 2003, at 6:32 AM, gdb-digest-help@sources.redhat.com wrote:
 > >>
 > >>> Whoops. I agree, this is screwed up.  I'll just make the fix now, no
 > >>> need to file a bug report.  I am curious, did somebody get async
 > >>> native to work? So far there is only the remote async target.  I do
 > >>> remember testing this, back 4 years ago, maybe the logic got turned
 > >>> around at some point.
 > >>>
 > >>>
 > >> _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
 > >> Jim Ingham
 > >> jingham@apple.com
 > >> Developer Tools - gdb
 > >>
 > _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
 > Jim Ingham                                                           
 > jingham@apple.com
 > Developer Tools - gdb