From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20452 invoked by alias); 10 Apr 2008 15:36:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 20405 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Apr 2008 15:36:35 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:36:17 +0000 Received: (qmail 20133 invoked from network); 10 Apr 2008 15:36:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 10 Apr 2008 15:36:15 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey Subject: Re: [RFC] Using bt command in async mode Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:39:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) References: <18417.38670.195071.81191@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20080410142029.GB21662@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200804101636.23799.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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/msg00194.txt.bz2 A Thursday 10 April 2008 16:22:36, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > Daniel> Seems like this will be just as awkward in the long term, but > Daniel> it's an improvement. > > Is there some other approach you'd prefer? > The approach I though of following would be to do it explicitly in each command, given that we may have commands that may apply to another thread not the current one in non-stop mode, prohibiting those commands early may be wrong. Something similar to ERROR_NO_INFERIOR. I'm not sure we're settled on --thread or not, so I didn't come forward with this. -- Pedro Alves