Re: gud breakage: ^done,changelist=[]

[Stefan <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

> The general problem seems intractable because Emacs has no way of knowing if
> input is going to gdb or the inferior.

Yes, gdb-ui would probably need to be more complex to try and resolve the
ambiguity: basically, send the text immediately (in case it's to be sent to
the debugged process) but don't rule out the possibility that it was maybe
sent to gdb: any code that would need to be run if the text was sent to gdb
should be added to a queue of maybe-pending-code, and then carefully analyze
the annotations you receive from gdb to try and infer what was sent to gdb
and what was sent to the debugged process.

In general it's still ambiguous anyway.

> The original code (gdba.el) got round the problem by always using
> a separate buffer for program input.

Yes, it's a much more reliable and straightforward solution.  I think
the only problem with it is how to avoid popping up an input/output buffer
if it's not going to be used.

Maybe what we should do is to always have a separate I/O buffer but only
pop-it up if the process sends output or if the user requests it via
gdb-view-inferior-io.

> Perhaps I should do what Stefan suggested a while ago and create a lisp
> command, gdb-resync, so that the user can recover control during a debug
> session and all is not lost.

Yes, I think this is still necessary to work around bugs/limitations in the
gdb-ui code.  But it's no match to actually fixing the problems ;-)


        Stefan