[MI] -break-insert: (a)synchronous?

Andrew Cagney ac131313@cygnus.com
Thu Jun 13 17:30:00 GMT 2002

> Hi,
> Ok, I believe that there was some general consensus that we want
> asynchronus event notifications. Do we also want only one channel for the
> notification of these events?
> It seems to me that we've got ways to communicate the breakpoint-create
> event: events and commands. Right now, -break-insert overrides the event
> handlers so that it can grab the data about the breakpoint when it is
> created, but inserting a breakpoint via another interpreter (like the

> (Ok, so we could also just add the "bkpt=..." info that is being used in
> -break-insert onto this command, but in any case, we get no "event" when
> inserting via -break-insert.)
> I would prefer that we use only event notifications, of course.
> That way, the the UI could call -break-info on these events to collect
> the information. This way, I only have to write one parser to deal with this
> event. (Actually, if I had to deal with both, I would just grab the

The command was implemented that way to match its documented spec.  I 
remember wondering about alternate implementations at the time.

Sounds like it is time to either define a new command (not capture the 
events) or change the spec.


More information about the Gdb mailing list