Re: asynchronous MI output commands

[Bob Rossi <bob_rossi at cox dot net>]

On Sat, May 06, 2006 at 03:36:53PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote:
>  > I just happened to notice that -exec-next and -interpreter-exec console
>  > next are surprisingly different.
>  > 
>  > (gdb)
>  > -exec-next
>  > ^running (gdb)
>  > *stopped,reason="end-stepping-range",thread-id="0",frame={addr="0x0804836b",func="main",args=[{name="argc",value="1"},{name="argv",value="0xbf80e254"}],file="main.c",line="5"}
>  > (gdb)
>  > -interpreter-exec console next
>  > ~"6\t  return 0;\n"
>  > ^done
>  > (gdb)
> 
> The branch that I want to create, when I have proper internet access, will
> give asynchronous output (*stopped) for both commands.

Wow Nick, that would be great. At some point in the near future I might
have time to help out with this if you need it. Let me know.

>  > Is next asynchronuos in 1 case and not the other?
> 
> They're both synchronous at the moment (the "*stopped" for -exec-next is faked).

Yeah, I do remember this from last year. I would love to see them become
asynchronous. That might be something I work on for mi3 if you don't
beat me to it :)

> Bob, I would guess that MI output is likely to continue to change so I would
> try to factor that into your parser.

Thanks for the advice! In a few weeks I'll probably have some reasonable
ground work done on the parser, I'll post a link if anyone's interested.

Bob Rossi