From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18890 invoked by alias); 19 Jun 2008 13:56:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 18881 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Jun 2008 13:56:16 -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; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:55:49 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD77F9840F; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:55:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5678298243; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:55:47 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1K9Kc5-0004Ps-4Y; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:55:45 -0400 Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 16:31:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Nick Roberts Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [non-stop] 00/10 non-stop mode Message-ID: <20080619135544.GA16956@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200806152357.52177.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200806182208.35175.pedro@codesourcery.com> <18521.35420.126987.238633@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <200806190457.59551.pedro@codesourcery.com> <18521.58024.181940.616509@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18521.58024.181940.616509@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-06/txt/msg00352.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 04:38:00PM +1200, Nick Roberts wrote: > > Selecting non-stop or all-stop modes, is something the user will > > want to do (even if all-stop mode gets to be implemented on top of > > non-stop in the future), as both modes are useful. > > If non-stop is available, under what circumstance would someone choose to > use all-stop? For non-time-sensitive applications, all-stop is probably more intuitive - a lot easier to explain to users, especially users of the command line. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery