[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       gdb
Subject:    Re: GDB/MI async output token field
From:       Vladimir Prus <ghost () cs ! msu ! su>
Date:       2014-06-04 20:28:14
Message-ID: 538F815E.9050702 () cs ! msu ! su
[Download RAW message or body]

On 05/29/2014 11:07 PM, Bob Rossi wrote:

> > The ChangeLog entry is useless, as usual. Here are relevant emails:
> > 
> > 	https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2008-03/msg00239.html
> > 	https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-04/msg00202.html
> > 
> > The was single case where token was included in async output, and I removed
> > that. I don't believe any new cases were added, and nobody was upset in
> > all that time, so adjusting documentation to say that async output
> > never includes any tokens seems reasonable to me.
> 
> Thanks! That was very helpful. I've now reproduced this behavior.
> 
> (gdb)
> 111-exec-run
> 111^running
> (gdb)
> 111*stopped,reason="breakpoint-hit",bkptno="1",thread-id="0",frame={addr="0x08048355",func="main",args=[],file="main.c",fullname="main.c",line="5"}
>  
> The question now arises, is the intent of the documentation that ships
> with GDB to accurately represent the current version of GDB or all
> version up to and including the current version of GDB?
> 
> The current version of GDB obviously does not use the token in the async
> output, legacy versions do.
> 
> Which should the documentation aim to match?

I'd say the documentation should match the current version merely as a practical \
matter. Documenting every tweak will probably reduce readability too much.

- Volodya


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]