From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20286 invoked by alias); 7 Mar 2008 22:33:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 20277 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Mar 2008 22:33:17 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:32:51 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AEEB983A0; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 22:32:49 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2920F98149; Fri, 7 Mar 2008 22:32:48 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JXl7P-0003FD-ON; Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:32:47 -0500 Date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:33:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Nick Roberts Cc: Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Async mode fixes. Message-ID: <20080307223247.GA12001@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200803051027.29575.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <18385.48967.964309.898509@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18385.48967.964309.898509@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) 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: 2008-03/txt/msg00060.txt.bz2 Hi Nick, thanks for looking at this. I was hoping you would. On Sat, Mar 08, 2008 at 11:18:47AM +1300, Nick Roberts wrote: > Like my patch, IMO this one looks a bit like a dog's breakfast. It's got some > good ideas, though, and has certainly increased my understanding of the > asynchronous code. Perhaps a combination of the two patches would create > something useful. As I understand it, it already is combined - I know Vladimir started with a copy of your most recent async patch. I haven't looked at his patch yet but it may need to be broken down into some pieces. > It may reduce the failures, but I suspect that's partly because it's not really > running asynchronously. I don't understand how it really could without adding > another file handler for inferior events. That doesn't mean it can't, just > that I don't understand how it could. Vladimir, what target were you using to test - was it "target async"? If so, there's already a file handler relevant to inferior events; "target async" uses the remote protocol to talk to gdbserver, so it receives events every time there's a byte on the TCP socket. > I think sync mode is also needed for command files. Shouldn't you be able to use async operations from a command file? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery