From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 127040 invoked by alias); 17 Jun 2019 12:56:49 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 116080 invoked by uid 89); 17 Jun 2019 12:56:41 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*i:sk:CAPmGMv, H*f:sk:CAPmGMv, H*i:sk:uDaSggt, H*f:sk:uDaSggt X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 12:56:40 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44CAD5612E; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 08:56:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id gA5eDTUaF3yS; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 08:56:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A1835612A; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 08:56:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9D27983923; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 08:56:38 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 12:56:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Jonah Graham Cc: Jan Vrany , Tom Tromey , "gdb@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: MI3 and async notifications Message-ID: <20190617125638.GA6859@adacore.com> References: <70fdd9107d9bb3cee0a1a342aedc05bf3c8e9bae.camel@fit.cvut.cz> <871rzu9at0.fsf@tromey.com> <20190617121412.GA4157@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-SW-Source: 2019-06/txt/msg00039.txt.bz2 > I do agree, avoid the extra configurability - but I simply don't know how > to work with just async notifications to sync messages. It means that CDT > will have to issues the -break-insert, look for the done message and > "search" between them to find the =breakpoint-created that matched and > separately process any that don't. Please see my earlier message about how > to handle race condition between -break-inserts over MI and breaks inserted > from CLI. This race condition does not happen during normal operation > (where a human is driving everything) but does kick in during many > semi-automated flows. Perhaps this isn't a big problem, but to me it seems > the logic to match up -break-insert to =breakpoint-created in client side > is complex and bug prone. The part I don't understand is why it matters to sync the two. -- Joel