From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22653 invoked by alias); 12 Jul 2002 00:28:32 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 22640 invoked from network); 12 Jul 2002 00:28:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO corb.mc.mpls.visi.com) (208.42.156.1) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Jul 2002 00:28:31 -0000 Received: from isis.visi.com (isis.visi.com [209.98.98.8]) by corb.mc.mpls.visi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14104819A; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:28:31 -0500 (CDT) Received: by isis.visi.com (Postfix, from userid 2181) id A9C9576C27; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 19:28:30 -0500 (CDT) Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:44:00 -0000 From: Grant Edwards To: gdb@sources.redhat.com, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RDI code busy-waiting on running target? Message-ID: <20020711192830.B1083@visi.com> References: <20020711184343.A4472@visi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00259.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 04:53:39PM -0700, Keith Seitz wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Grant Edwards wrote: > > > Here's a patch that fixes it. I only added the usleep() when > > there's no ui_loop_hook to call. Is that the right thing to > > do, or will Insight et al still suck CPU time? I'm not sure > > who's supposed to be surrendering the CPU, the UI or the > > target. > > Insight would definitely shoot to 100% CPU, too. This often a problem with > have gdb non-event based w.r.t. the target. I would recommend doing the > sleep for the ui_loop_hook, too. I'll submit a replacement patch tomorrow. -- Grant Edwards grante@visi.com