From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22337 invoked by alias); 9 May 2008 01:45:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 22326 invoked by uid 22791); 9 May 2008 01:45:17 -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, 09 May 2008 01:44:57 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 065CB983F1 for ; Fri, 9 May 2008 01:44:56 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E643798011 for ; Fri, 9 May 2008 01:44:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JuHfK-0005wi-TB for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 08 May 2008 21:44:54 -0400 Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 02:52:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] 07/10 non-stop inferior control Message-ID: <20080509014454.GA22833@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200805061649.24082.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200805090222.51406.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200805090222.51406.pedro@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/msg00299.txt.bz2 On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 02:22:51AM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > Isn't this new_thread_event handling a bandaid for some > misbehaving target? My understanding was that targets should handle > new thread events (and call add_thread*) themselves nowadays. That might be a little strong; but the Linux and remote targets do so, because it was much more convenient. > Since this is a new mode that will require adaptation > by each target, it sounded reasonable to require that the > the new_thread_event should never be hit, and that the > target handles adding threads to GDB's thread list. If documented in gdbint, I think this would be a reasonable new restriction. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery