From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13105 invoked by alias); 2 May 2008 13:43:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 13092 invoked by uid 22791); 2 May 2008 13:43:48 -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, 02 May 2008 13:43:28 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 079EA983DA; Fri, 2 May 2008 13:43:27 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5BDC983D6; Fri, 2 May 2008 13:43:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JrvXp-0007vM-VL; Fri, 02 May 2008 09:43:25 -0400 Date: Fri, 02 May 2008 13:44:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Vladimir Prus Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA] Make continuations per-thread. Message-ID: <20080502134325.GB29202@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Vladimir Prus , Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200804242045.39246.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200805021234.12472.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20080502132337.GA29202@caradoc.them.org> <200805021730.33831.vladimir@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200805021730.33831.vladimir@codesourcery.com> 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: 2008-05/txt/msg00075.txt.bz2 On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 05:30:32PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote: > I think the sensible behaviour is the same as for "next" -- abort > whatever the operation we were doing. This means that we have to wipe > continuation inside 'proceed'. I can adjust the patch this way, but > does it make sense to you? It makes sense, but I'm wondering how much work it would be to do better than that (for all-stop, I mean - clearly you're planning to do better for non-stop). In the example in my last message, there's a point where thread 1 is stopped in the middle of a finish. Info threads could show "(finishing)". Should step / next clear that, or should we be able to step a bit and then print the return value when we get there? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery