Re: async patch (no. 4)

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 08:50:38AM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote:
> I don't know how you can claim to uderstand almost none of it after you
> suggested to me to use SIGCHLD to interrupt the call to select instead of using
> threads.  I think some of these comments are based on looking at the previous
> (eponymous) patch (no. 4).

That's the only part of the patch I claim to understand at all.  It's
not that it's unintelligible - it's that I don't understand why any
given line is necessary.  Like, what does async_signal_hook do, and
why is it called from those particular places?  Why does async
behavior change where we need to claim the terminal?  Are the
quit_flag changes still necessary now that we've done some work on
QUIT?  Why don't the infrun changes break thread handling all over the
place?

All of these things are the same questions we'd ask for any patch.

> This is made harder by the fact that some of the event loop is quite obscure
> and I suspect has a level of abstraction that is currently unused.  Perhaps a
> good starting point would be to simplify this first.

Sounds fine to me.  We can always re-add it if we want it.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery