From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6054 invoked by alias); 9 May 2008 02:08:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 5958 invoked by uid 22791); 9 May 2008 02:08:08 -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; Fri, 09 May 2008 02:07:51 +0000 Received: (qmail 3920 invoked from network); 9 May 2008 02:07:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 9 May 2008 02:07:49 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] 09/10 Add "continue --all" Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 03:54:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Eli Zaretskii References: <200805061649.50105.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200805090236.09903.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20080509014720.GB22833@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20080509014720.GB22833@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200805090307.47327.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: 2008-05/txt/msg00302.txt.bz2 A Friday 09 May 2008 02:47:20, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 02:36:09AM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > > And after a bit, it hit me that we use /opt most everywhere > > else, so "continue /a" makes more sense? > > I don't know; personally I do not like it. The other slashed options > are all output formatting, even Doug's new /m for disassemble. This > one is behavior, not option. > > Does continue have to handle all threads at once, or is this similar > to "thread apply all continue"? It's basically the same. I mentioned that upthread. > We could alias all -> thread apply > all. I love the sound of that! "all continue". Perfect. There's just one difference. "continue --all" resumes all threads and prints "Continuing." once, while "all continue" would print that (or whatever we change it too) once per resuming thread. That may actually be better, unless we wanted to compress the output, like Continuing all threads or Continuing thread 2,3,5,7,8,...,20 vs Continuing thread 2 Continuing thread 3 Continuing thread 5 Continuing thread 7 Continuing thread ... Continuing thread 20 But "all continue", "all interrupt", "all ..." seems so perfect that I'm for all it. Others? -- Pedro Alves