Re: asynchronous MI output commands

[Bob Rossi <bob_rossi at cox dot net>]

On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 08:42:03AM -0700, Jim Ingham wrote:
> I think that the lack of notification about what has gone on when  
> somebody uses interpreter-exec to run the target is just a bug in the  
> interpreter-exec command.  Since that command allows lots of stuff to  
> go on behind the MI client's back, you need to inform the client  
> about this.  You could either post asynchronous notifications about  
> what happened (for instance an =running or whatever) or you can just  
> make the -interpreter-exec command behave like -exec-next when it  
> does indeed run the target.  The latter is what we did for Xcode, so  
> you get the *stopped message if the target was run.

Hi Jim,

Well, I agree that this is a bug in the interpreter-exec command.
I think both of your solution are appropriate. I would find it
interesting to know which solution is easier to implement in GDB. The
interesting case of course is when the user does a single CLI command
that is a 'commands' definition. Thus, a single -interpreter-exec 
command can be similar to running N CLI commands.

I haven't even tested this case out yet, but I'm assuming there's big
problems in this area. I seem to have more time lately, and would like
to start patching up some of these holes. I would very much like to see
mi3 come out soon, with a lot of these problems resolved.

Thanks,
Bob Rossi