From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22376 invoked by alias); 24 Feb 2014 17:38:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 22365 invoked by uid 89); 24 Feb 2014 17:38:00 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:38:00 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s1OHbwuD007749 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2014 12:37:58 -0500 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-45.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.45]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s1OHbvXY029810 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 24 Feb 2014 12:37:58 -0500 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 9/9] enable target-async References: <1382464769-2465-1-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <1382464769-2465-10-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <52828856.9070904@redhat.com> <87li0qve9y.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <528A2E8B.9050300@redhat.com> <87r49piu9z.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2014 17:38:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <87r49piu9z.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (Tom Tromey's message of "Fri, 06 Dec 2013 13:44:40 -0700") Message-ID: <87k3cke7ii.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2014-02/txt/msg00725.txt.bz2 Pedro> Sorry, I wasn't clear. I understand what as a whole the patch is trying Pedro> to do; what I don't understand is why a hack was necessary, or its Pedro> implementation. E.g., what exactly fails if the hack is not Pedro> in place?; Why this spot for the hack?; What's the predicate used in Pedro> the hack actually checking? Tom> I don't remember, but I'll back it out and redo the analysis to find Tom> out. Pedro> Now that I looked again a little closer, I recalled that GDB in Pedro> sync mode always outputs a silly extra prompt right after Pedro> ^running (in response to execution commands), before the target Pedro> stops, even though GDB is not ready for input then. Guess this Pedro> hack is related? Tom> Probably so. Yes, this is what is going on. If I remove the prompt-printing code here, then a simple case like mi-start.exp fails because gdb fails to print a prompt after the *stopped notification. Moving the prompt printing elsewhere doesn't really help, either, because other choices mean introducing test regressions somewhere. Tom