From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27152 invoked by alias); 5 May 2008 13:06:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 27143 invoked by uid 22791); 5 May 2008 13:06:20 -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; Mon, 05 May 2008 13:06:01 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E9E46980F7; Mon, 5 May 2008 13:05:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA14998060; Mon, 5 May 2008 13:05:58 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Jt0OE-000736-1v; Mon, 05 May 2008 09:05:58 -0400 Date: Mon, 05 May 2008 14:12:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] bpstat_do_actions in one place Message-ID: <20080505130558.GA27076@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200804242002.03590.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200805051304.05449.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20080505114824.GB22274@caradoc.them.org> <200805051658.32272.vladimir@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200805051658.32272.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/msg00203.txt.bz2 On Mon, May 05, 2008 at 04:58:31PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Well, this was the behaviour I though to be the most reasonable. OK. If we want to change it, someone gets the lousy job of going through all the call sites. I had to fix up a bunch of them recently. > > For instance, a program running in a while (1) loop with a breakpoint > > set in it, and the breakpoint has a command that produces output, like > > backtrace. Quit will now resume the program and generate another > > backtrace, I think. > > Yes, I think so; seems fine to me. Is there any documentation for how > 'quit' should generally work, especially inside breakpoint commands? It's only a problem because there's no way to stop it. When the prompt is displayed C-c will not stop the application (since it's already stopped), and typing q will stop the current backtrace and resume the application. Very hard to get out of it. No, there isn't any documentation for how this should work, yet. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery