[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: gdba probs
From: |
Nick Roberts |
Subject: |
Re: gdba probs |
Date: |
Sun, 15 Dec 2002 00:36:02 +0000 |
Stefan Monnier writes:
> I have no idea what this entails, but maybe it is related to another
> wish of mine: to make it usable when running "gdb --fullname foo".
> Right now, it seems that if gdb is not started with "--annotate=2"
> gdba just "freezes" (typing stuff at gdb prompt leads nowhere).
I've looked at it now.
It "freezes" because when a gdb command is typed in the GUD buffer goes onto
the queue (C-h v gdb-input-queue). It goes on the input queue because
gdb-instance-prompting is nil therefore thinks its not ready for
input. gdb-instance-prompting is nil because it hasn't received the prompt
annotation. It hasn't received the prompt annotation because its been called
with "--fullname".
> > > > @@ -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)
> And? Same thing: some other debugger might use the exact same sequence.
> Better put the test in gud-gdb-marker-filter so there's not ambiguity
> and so the generic part of the code stays cleaner.
I see now that "^Z^Z" is some kind of universal marker, I had thought it was
GDB specific.
> Better put the test in gud-gdb-marker-filter so there's not ambiguity
> and so the generic part of the code stays cleaner.
> ...
It might be easier to approach it from the other end i.e add an annotation
rule for gdb-output-burst to accommodate "--fullname".
> The ultimate goal is to merge M-x gdb and M-x gdba, but it doesn't
> have to be done in a single step. I think the first step is to make
> sure that both work (maybe with quirks) regardless of whether
> --annotate=2 was used or not.
I think I understand now. I'll go away and think about it.
Miles Bader writes :
> into a separate function to avoid cluttering up gud-filter, something
> like `gdba-take-over-process' or something. It could even be an
> autoloaded function in gdb-ui.el.
^^^^^^^^^^
So gdb-ui.el wouldn't get loaded unless gdb was invoked with annotations, right?
Thats a good point, I hadn't thought of that.
Nick
- Re: gdba probs, (continued)
- Re: gdba probs, Nick Roberts, 2002/12/10
- Re: gdba probs, Stefan Monnier, 2002/12/11
- Re: gdba probs, Nick Roberts, 2002/12/11
- Re: gdba probs, Stefan Monnier, 2002/12/11
- Re: gdba probs, Nick Roberts, 2002/12/11
- Re: gdba probs, Stefan Monnier, 2002/12/12
- Re: gdba probs, Miles Bader, 2002/12/12
- Re: gdba probs, Richard Stallman, 2002/12/13
- Re: gdba probs, Miles Bader, 2002/12/11
- Re: gdba probs, Kim F. Storm, 2002/12/12
- Re: gdba probs,
Nick Roberts <=
Re: gdba probs, Richard Stallman, 2002/12/07
- Re: gdba probs, Nick Roberts, 2002/12/07
- Re: gdba probs, Richard Stallman, 2002/12/09
- Re: gdba probs, Nick Roberts, 2002/12/10
- Re: gdba probs, Kim F. Storm, 2002/12/10
- Re: gdba probs, Eli Zaretskii, 2002/12/11
- Re: gdba probs, Richard Stallman, 2002/12/11
Re: gdba probs, Miles Bader, 2002/12/07
Re: gdba probs, Stefan Monnier, 2002/12/10
Re: gdba probs, Richard Stallman, 2002/12/11