MI query questions

[Jim Ingham]

On May 30, 2006, at 10:53 AM, Bob Rossi wrote:

> On Tue, May 30, 2006 at 10:48:53AM -0700, Jim Ingham wrote:
>> Actually, to avoid confusion, this really looks like:
>>
>> (gdb) set interpreter mi1
>> -interpreter-exec console-quoted "break raise"
>> ~"[0] cancel\n[1] all\n"
>> ~"\nNon-debugging symbols:\n"
>> ~"[2]    -[NSException raise]\n"
>> ~"[3]    raise\n"
>> =read-one-line,prompt="> "
>>
>> In our version of gdb the console interpreter really is the straight
>> CLI console interpreter - this is required to get the "set
>> interpreter" command to work.  So we had to invent another
>> interpreter that did the proper quoting.  Anyway, this is what it
>> would look like for you...
>
> This is also the solution I was thinking of. However, I would like to
> modify the MI OUTPUT record to show this as a possibility. Also, I  
> think
> that this should be 1 full response.
>     (gdb) set interpreter mi1
>     -interpreter-exec console-quoted "break raise"
>     ~"[0] cancel\n[1] all\n"
>     ~"\nNon-debugging symbols:\n"
>     ~"[2]    -[NSException raise]\n"
>     ~"[3]    raise\n"
>     =read-one-line,prompt="> "
>     (gdb)
>
> And then the user will send the command, and then get another full
> response representing the breakpoint output.
>
> Does this make sense?

I'm not sure I like this.  It doesn't really seem to mirror what's  
going on.  The -interpreter-exec command hasn't finished, rather,  
it's asking - out of band - for some more information.  So sending an  
out-of-band message with this request seems cleaner.  Why do you want  
the extra (gdb) prompt?

Jim

>
> This would mean that there would be a new part of the MI output record
> that would tell the FE that it needs to ask the user for more
> information. Most FE's that have used annotate 1 or 2 have already  
> come
> across this situation and dealt with it nicely.
>
> Thanks,
> Bob Rossi