From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jim Ingham To: Todd Whitesel , Cc: "\"Insight (GDB GUI)\"" Subject: Re: non-blocking reads/writes and event loops Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2000 10:07:00 -0000 Message-id: References: <200006130147.SAA22432@alabama.wrs.com> X-SW-Source: 2000-q2/msg00263.html on 6/12/00 6:47 PM, Todd Whitesel at toddpw@windriver.com wrote: >> The thing that needs to be decided is how far GDB should be pushed to >> address this problem. Should GDB continue to be pushed to the point >> where everything is event based or should, the current compromise remain >> where a GUI is unable to exploit GDBs event-loop. > > I am a advocate of long-time eventification. We should not create a mess > in an attempt to do it quickly, but it should remain a long-term goal. > The flexibility that we gain in doing so will pay us back later. I heartily agree! > > In particular, I think it is extremely inappropriate for GDB itself to > require threads. That would, in principle, be about as bad as allowing > parts of GCC to require a working C++ compiler... That was also the conclusion we came to when Andrew, Elena et al were coming up with the *-async targets. I don't think that we should solve the problem of making gdb non-blocking by putting everything in separate threads. However, threads may need to be used in the case where you only have a blocking API to control the inferior, but in that case all you are doing is using threads to fix this local deficiency, not pushing it into the gdb architecture. I think this is managable. Jim