Re: [RFC] Queries and frontends

[nickrob at snap dot net dot nz (Nick Roberts)]

 > Nick> Here's a revised patch for my original request.  It doesn't help
 > Nick> with issues relating to GDB/MI but just uses the "server prefix"
 > Nick> instead of a special option.
 > 
 > My initial reaction to this was to think that defaulted_query should
 > respect server_command.  Is there a case where this would do the wrong
 > thing?

I don't quite follow.  AFAIK defaulted_query knows nothing about
server_command.  I guess it would be possible to make GDB never query when
the server prefix is used but the long term goal is to remove annotations.
I'm just proposing that "record stop" doesn't need confirmation when the
server prefix is used.  Since "record stop" is new to GDB 7.0 that won't
break/change existing behaviour so I don't see how it can do the wrong
thing if it's properly implemented.

Hui has suggested adding a special command but I don't understand how his
proposed "maintenance print target-stack" relates to queries.

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob