From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6429 invoked by alias); 11 May 2008 13:58:07 -0000 Received: (qmail 6406 invoked by uid 22791); 11 May 2008 13:58:03 -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; Sun, 11 May 2008 13:57:45 +0000 Received: (qmail 27903 invoked from network); 11 May 2008 13:57:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (vladimir@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 11 May 2008 13:57:43 -0000 From: Vladimir Prus To: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [RFA] Implement *running. Date: Sun, 11 May 2008 15:32:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 0.20070907.709405) Cc: drow@false.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200805011735.52447.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200805041837.44909.vladimir@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200805111757.45980.vladimir@codesourcery.com> 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/msg00351.txt.bz2 On Sunday 04 May 2008 22:38:03 Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > From: Vladimir Prus > > Date: Sun, 4 May 2008 18:37:43 +0400 > > Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > > > I've added the docs. Eli, are those OK? > > Thanks. Yes, it's okay, except for a couple of comments: > > > +@item *running,thread-id="@var{thread}" > > +The target is now running. The @var{thread} field tells which > > +specific thread is now running, and can be @samp{all} if all threads > > +are running. The frontend should assume that no interaction with a > > +running thread is possible after this notification is produced. > > +@value{GDBN} may emit this notification several times for a given > > +thread, and the frontend should handle this gracefully. > > The last sentence begs a question: why would this notification emitted > more than once, Because internally, gdb might resume target more than once before letting it run freely (e.g. to step over a breakpoint), and it might be hard to reliably suppress duplicate *running > and what do you mean by "gracefully"? just that it > shouldn't assume the notification is emitted only once? Yes. How about this wording: The frontend should not assume that this notification is output only once for any command. @value{GDBN} may emit this notification several times, either for different threads, because it cannot resume all threads together, or even for a single thread, if the thread must be stepped though some code before letting it run freely. - Volodya