From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19819 invoked by alias); 30 Apr 2008 12:53:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 19811 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Apr 2008 12:53:48 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from igw1.br.ibm.com (HELO igw1.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.24) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:53:26 +0000 Received: from mailhub1.br.ibm.com (mailhub1 [9.18.232.109]) by igw1.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7DA1132C299 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:30:07 -0300 (BRST) Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (d24av01.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.46]) by mailhub1.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.7) with ESMTP id m3UCrOb34133022 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:53:24 -0300 Received: from d24av01.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m3UCrDT1026891 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:53:13 -0300 Received: from [9.8.4.32] ([9.8.4.32]) by d24av01.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m3UCrCZp026702 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 30 Apr 2008 09:53:13 -0300 Subject: Re: continuations and breakpoint commands From: Luis Machado Reply-To: luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <200804292221.52239.pedro@codesourcery.com> References: <200804292221.52239.pedro@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:03:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1209559986.7131.9.camel@gargoyle> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.12.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-04/txt/msg00696.txt.bz2 Pedro, On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 22:21 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > This patch fixes continuation handling in async mode, by making > the handling sequence match the sync code path. Thanks for the patch. The commands.exp testcase is now clear for PPC. Didn't see any regressions. Just a minor gotcha: - /* If the continuation did not start the target again, - prepare for interation with the user. */ + /* If no breakpoint command resumed the inferior, prepare for + >>interation<< with the user. */ Is "interation" supposed to be "interaction"? Regards, Luis