From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30169 invoked by alias); 4 Jun 2008 12:07:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 30113 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Jun 2008 12:07:19 -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; Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:07:01 +0000 Received: (qmail 10694 invoked from network); 4 Jun 2008 12:06:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 4 Jun 2008 12:06:58 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] 07/10 non-stop inferior control Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2008 12:07:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: Vladimir Prus References: <200805061649.24082.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200806041306.56312.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: 2008-06/txt/msg00022.txt.bz2 A Wednesday 04 June 2008 12:49:06, Vladimir Prus wrote: > Pedro Alves wrote: > Am I missing something, or there's no way to interrupt all threads? > Given that we have "continue -a"/"-exec-continue --all", I think a way > to interrupt all threads will be desirable. In fact, I'd claim that if > MI frontend has to issue several -exec-interrupt commands to stop the > program completely, it's a regression in functionality. Of course, I > can make MI do anything, but I need backend support for that :-) > Yes, you're right. I had split the c -a into the other patch, because I wanted to leave other interface extensions to be done incrementally, and discurred `interrupt'. > Also, it seems inconsistent to me that "continue" has the -a option, > to resume all threads, while "interrupt" accepts an thread id. I'd > suggest that "interrupt" be modified to accept -a, and not accept > thread number. I'll just do this, OK? -- Pedro Alves