From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 82375 invoked by alias); 23 May 2019 16:18:03 -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 82326 invoked by uid 89); 23 May 2019 16:18:03 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-8.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=H*i:sk:7e9d754, HX-Languages-Length:1183, H*f:sk:7e9d754 X-HELO: relay.fit.cvut.cz Received: from relay.fit.cvut.cz (HELO relay.fit.cvut.cz) (147.32.232.237) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 May 2019 16:18:02 +0000 Received: from imap.fit.cvut.cz (imap.fit.cvut.cz [IPv6:2001:718:2:2901:0:0:0:238]) by relay.fit.cvut.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPS id x4NGHu9N047051 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 23 May 2019 18:17:58 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from jan.vrany@fit.cvut.cz) Received: from sao (02791bac.bb.sky.com [2.121.27.172] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0 as user vranyj1) by imap.fit.cvut.cz (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id x4NGHtNB095937 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NOT); Thu, 23 May 2019 18:17:56 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from jan.vrany@fit.cvut.cz) Message-ID: <75ba88f0d3dc96d4f1e4f9ad6520a5b2f848d6d6.camel@fit.cvut.cz> Subject: Re: GDB/MI executing a python command From: Jan Vrany To: Simon Marchi , David Griffiths , GDB Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 12:08:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <7e9d7546-2f5a-82fa-3f65-a58c907cfc23@simark.ca> References: <6dd959f2-09cf-2bb2-45cd-0f945ae5409d@simark.ca> <7e9d7546-2f5a-82fa-3f65-a58c907cfc23@simark.ca> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.30.5-1 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-05/txt/msg00044.txt.bz2 On Thu, 2019-05-23 at 12:03 -0400, Simon Marchi wrote: > On 2019-05-23 11:54 a.m., Jan Vrany wrote: > > I dont think so. In my opinion it *should* produce correct MI output. If there's an MI channel > > opened, whenever the inferior is run or stopped, there should be an MI event, no matter what. > > > > Imagine you have an MI frontend and you execute, from CLI, a custom python command than in turn > > does gdb.execute("stepi") - or worse, gdb.execute("cont"). Then inferior is running but MI frontend > > still thinks it is stopped, making those two out of sync. This would lead in all sort of problems > > like frontent would still show "stopped", when switching thread in UI would result an MI error when > > trying to obtain stacktrace (which hard to handle, since all you get is a *localized* error message). > > And so on. > > Yes, but that's what the *running notification is for. I was talking about the ^running, which > is not a notification, but a reply to a command. It is strange that the MI channel gets a reply > for a command it did not send. Ah, I'm sorry! My eyes are failing me. Then I of course agree. Jan > > Simon >