This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: GDB/MI async output token field
- From: Bob Rossi <bob at brasko dot net>
- To: Vladimir Prus <ghost at cs dot msu dot su>
- Cc: gdb at sourceware dot org
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 22:49:22 -0400
- Subject: Re: GDB/MI async output token field
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20140523011405 dot GA10166 at linux> <538198B5 dot 30208 at cs dot msu dot su> <20140527155549 dot GA25063 at linux>
On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 11:55:49AM -0400, Bob Rossi wrote:
> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 11:16:05AM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > On 05/23/2014 05:14 AM, Bob Rossi wrote:
> > >On this page,
> > >https://sourceware.org/gdb/onlinedocs/gdb/GDB_002fMI-Output-Syntax.html#GDB_002fMI-Output-Syntax
> > >
> > >The documentation says,
> > > Note that for all async output, while the token is allowed by the
> > > grammar and may be output by future versions of gdb for select async
> > > output messages, it is generally omitted.
> > >
> > > Frontends should treat all async output as reporting general changes in
> > > the state of the target and there should be no need to associate async
> > > output to any prior command.
> > >
> > >I searched through the GDB source code and can't find a single place
> > >where this occurs.
> > such clarification will be good.
> 2008-04-24 Vladimir Prus <email@example.com>
> * gdb.texinfo (GDB/MI Output Syntax): Clarify that async
> output does not necessary include any tokens.
> That looked a little suspicous. That is, perhaps there are cases were
> the token is in the async output?
Perhaps I was unclear. I have a patch that removes the [token] syntax
from the GDB manual regarding async output.
I found your commit message that added a note that stated async
output does not necessarily include tokens.
The note made me think that at the time, you knew of at least one case
where async output would include the token (or you would have removed
the token syntax from the async output instead of saying that the token
might not be included).
Can you (or anyone) recall a case where GDB would output a token with an
I don't want to post a patch that removes the token syntax from the gdb
manual if indeed someone will run into it in the wild. That makes the
situation worse, not better.