From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31148 invoked by alias); 19 Mar 2008 19:22:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 31136 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Mar 2008 19:22:58 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:22:41 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 95DA52A9DC9 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:22:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 57bq6ogLJA3N for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:22:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C0002A9DA7 for ; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 15:22:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 55D56E7ACB; Wed, 19 Mar 2008 12:22:37 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:22:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [linux] fix stepping over fork in follow-child mode. Message-ID: <20080319192237.GB3588@adacore.com> References: <200803182046.46420.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20080318234805.GA14989@caradoc.them.org> <20080319160257.GA31587@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080319160257.GA31587@caradoc.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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/msg00288.txt.bz2 Hi Daniel, > > Here's an alternative fix. Vladimir, this is also the patch I was > > talking about earlier on IRC. Not tested or finished yet. > > Any comments? Otherwise I'll commit this in a few days. I'm really amazed at the amount of simplification this brings. Never having looked at thread support on Linux, I had no idea... I only have one very minor question: Why is the thread exit notification now conditional on print_thread_events? I did notice that you changed the few printf_filtered of such events into printf_unfiltered the same way we did for the new thread events, which is nice :). Thanks, -- Joel