From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-19801-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 9216 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2002 20:46:58 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 9204 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2002 20:46:57 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Nov 2002 20:46:57 -0000
Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA5KOPw01948
	for <gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 15:24:26 -0500
Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.156])
	by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA5Kkqf22717;
	Tue, 5 Nov 2002 15:46:52 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn50-45.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.45])
	by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA5KkpT11059;
	Tue, 5 Nov 2002 15:46:52 -0500
Received: (from kev@localhost)
	by localhost.localdomain (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gA5Kkkl27983;
	Tue, 5 Nov 2002 13:46:46 -0700
Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 12:46:00 -0000
From: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <1021105204646.ZM27982@localhost.localdomain>
In-Reply-To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>
        "Stand resume() on its head" (Nov  5,  3:28pm)
References: <3DC829E3.4090603@redhat.com>
To: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@redhat.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Stand resume() on its head
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00057.txt.bz2

On Nov 5,  3:28pm, Andrew Cagney wrote:

> There have now been several discussion threads that lead to the 
> conclusion that
> 
> 	target->resume (ptid_t, int, enum target_signal)
> 
> needs changing.  At present the suggestion is to add a parameter to 
> indicate schedule locking and similar operations.
> 
> I'd like to propose a different approach.  Instead of passing to 
> resume() what to do, have resume() iterate over all the threads asking 
> each what it should do - suspend, step, run, signal, ...

Sounds reasonable.  (In fact, it seems a whole lot more workable than
the other approach.)

Kevin