Re: MI non-stop mode spec

[Nick Roberts <nickrob at snap dot net dot nz>]

 > Hi Nick,
 > Thank you for the reply.  I'm still rather curious what you, Vladimir, 
 > and anyone else think of the rest of my suggestions. 

Hi Pawel,

I try to only have an opinion on matters that I have influence over which
primarily means use of Gdb in Emacs.  Currently Emacs still uses annotations
and only a subset of MI for things like variable objects for watch expressions,
display of locals etc.  This means that I don't have to worry so much about
backward compatibility.

 > One note about the =breakpoints-changed proposed above.  I think it 
 > would be a mistake to just replace the ^done reply to 
 > -break-insert/-break-remove with an event alone, because a client would 
 > have no way of knowing whether an event was in response to that client's 
 > request or another client's request.  I.e. a client would not be able to 
 > positively determine the ID of the breakpoint he just created.  I see 
 > two equally good ways to address this:
 > 1) Add the =breakpoints-changed event in addition to the ^done with 
 > breakpoint info, but the =breakpoints-changed would have to be sent 
 > AFTER the ^done reply.
 > 2) Allow clients to specify their own arbitrary ID for a breakpoint, 
 > with an option such as -client-id="abc".  Then have the 
 > =breakpoints-changed event and other query commands echo the client-id 
 > along with the regular breakpoint ID.

Sure.  Events prefixed with "=" are NOTIFY-ASYNC-OUTPUT records as described
in the Gdb manual and are issued independently of RESULT-RECORDs like ^done.

For CLI commands maybe something like 2) would be needed.

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob