From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 72180 invoked by alias); 17 Jun 2019 12:26:38 -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 72171 invoked by uid 89); 17 Jun 2019 12:26:37 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy=me, kick, race, H*c:alternative X-HELO: pb-smtp20.pobox.com Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (HELO pb-smtp20.pobox.com) (173.228.157.52) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 12:26:36 +0000 Received: from pb-smtp20.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC63D7189C for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 08:26:34 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jonah@kichwacoders.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=mime-version :references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc :content-type; s=sasl; bh=j6AqzY4WZgpMNw6Wr6DoNPZtJtk=; b=GTqj7M WMRiXByobtS9rFIVaSwJWrjeurC9HDBAx3nRNWpyCpUaa+/3rgdv9sXmx6FhKReD MNhcFcKP1sJIlwRXMOBCivBSBwmhdyRPgTsIbfc1iZv+m8lVTZJqSSWhQRxEjfwA qbx6vhbCIfFfOWkLl81TUbtB3FFJGxzBySNUM= Received: from pb-smtp20.sea.icgroup.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B41277189B for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 08:26:34 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jonah@kichwacoders.com) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=kichwacoders.com; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; s=mesmtp; bh=Y5Fk2uR9tAKXJYk0qOlG4CjQMsbplAD/N3O+7cxM9t4=; b=X71pa4Zjv+t/itHZRCUQIenqXKE4hYorqqS7IFU03sKUKqOTfP8Cku1VV/Ocjp8IosUVBputtyxQ/ZZ9AZplzelpyLsPADM7kllNlxJ89yND6gF41uvSFIcTRsfOW2zqek0xy/0BprXjHOIAHm860nm6SKCOnFMo3yO1x96Td38= Received: from mail-qt1-f181.google.com (unknown [209.85.160.181]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pb-smtp20.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A1797189A for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 08:26:31 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from jonah@kichwacoders.com) Received: by mail-qt1-f181.google.com with SMTP id x2so10432236qtr.0 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 2019 05:26:31 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <70fdd9107d9bb3cee0a1a342aedc05bf3c8e9bae.camel@fit.cvut.cz> <871rzu9at0.fsf@tromey.com> <20190617121412.GA4157@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20190617121412.GA4157@adacore.com> From: Jonah Graham Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2019 12:26:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: MI3 and async notifications To: Joel Brobecker Cc: Jan Vrany , Tom Tromey , "gdb@sourceware.org" X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 2345D720-90FB-11E9-BFB6-B0405B776F7B-18936988!pb-smtp20.pobox.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2019-06/txt/msg00038.txt.bz2 On Mon, 17 Jun 2019 at 08:14, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > > It seems like a good idea to me. I wonder if it makes sense to go even > > > further and say there will only be async notifications for things like > > > this. > > > > Yes, I thought the same initially. But then what about other existing MI > > consumers? > > In my opinion, while I think upward compatibility is very important, > it is also important to avoid having too many configurability options. > Otherwise, we end up with a large number of options and the testing > matrix, if we want to verify that they work well together, quickly > explodes. > > In this case, because we have MI versions, and because the notification > shouldn't be different from the data of the "^done" message, I think > the incompatibility would be acceptable -- assuming existing parsers > don't come back to say that it actually is a large effort for them > to adapt. > > 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.