This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Implement *running.
On Sunday 04 May 2008 18:37:43 Vladimir Prus wrote:
> On Friday 02 May 2008 19:57:19 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > On Thu, May 01, 2008 at 04:35:52PM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > > This has no regressions in default and async modes on x86. OK?
> >
> > Just minor concerns. Docs - yes, I know very well that you know this
> > - but making sure we see docs before the code change goes in makes
> > sure that no one forgets in the crush of other patches. So, sorry,
> > but expect to keep getting this reply :-)
>
> I've added the docs. Eli, are those OK?
>
> > Also, what are the expected changes in async and non-async? Will we
> > start generating this for non-async and is that likely to break any
> > frontend?
>
> The expected change than any command that resumes a target will produce
> *running, in either all-stop or non-stop mode. I don't expect this
> to break any frontend, as frontends are supposed to ignore things
> they don't understand.
>
> >
> > > * doc/observer.texi (target_resumed): New observer.
> >
> > Doc has its own changelog.
> >
> > > diff --git a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.mi/mi-break.exp b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.mi/mi-break.exp
> > > index 48527fd..b895020 100644
> > > --- a/gdb/testsuite/gdb.mi/mi-break.exp
> > > +++ b/gdb/testsuite/gdb.mi/mi-break.exp
> > > @@ -174,11 +174,11 @@ proc test_error {} {
> > > # containing function call, the internal breakpoint created to handle
> > > # function call would be reported, messing up MI output.
> > > mi_gdb_test "-var-create V * return_1()" \
> > > - "\\^done,name=\"V\",numchild=\"0\",value=\"1\",type=\"int\"" \
> > > + ".*\\^done,name=\"V\",numchild=\"0\",value=\"1\",type=\"int\"" \
> > > "create varobj for function call"
> >
> > The comment suggests this test is supposed to fail if there is stray
> > output... adding a leading .* is not nice.
>
> Right. In fact, this test no longer has to be changed.
>
> Here's a revised patch, OK?
Dan,
do you have any further comments on this patch, or it's OK to commit?
- Volodya