Re: gdba probs

[Nick Roberts]

 > I don't see why we need to change something to the generic part of GUD.

Currently gdb-ui.el requires gud.el. If M-x gdb can be used with "-annotate=2"
then gud.el will require gdb-ui.el. This means they might as well be one
(large) file doesnt it ?

 > > @@ -2344,6 +2347,42 @@
 > >  
 > >  (defun gud-filter (proc string)
 > >    ;; Here's where the actual buffer insertion is done
 > > +  (when (and gud-first-time (string-match
 > > +       "\n\032\032[a-z]" string))
 > 
 > What if DBX outputs this same sequence?

You take the patch too literally. It should have something like:

(string-match "\n\032\032pre-prompt\|\n\032\032breakpoints-invalid" string)

but I haven't worked out exactly what as gud-filter seems to process the last
chunk first. The first annotaion might even be "\032\032error-begin" if gdb
tries to debug a file that doesn't exist. Of course in the unlikely event of
DBX ouputting this sequence it would choke but then it would probably have
come from the program being debugged in which GDB would choke too.

 > Clearly, we want this hack to be GDB-specific and should thus put it in
 > GDB's filter.
 
It could go there but you will still end up with only one file. So it might be
better to keep M-x gdba. If, one day, it works properly, then M-x gdb could go.

Nick