From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16624 invoked by alias); 5 Aug 2008 18:28:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 16614 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Aug 2008 18:28:20 -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; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:27:38 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0BC37983EF; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:27:37 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85120983A9; Tue, 5 Aug 2008 18:27:36 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KQRFv-00020z-Uz; Tue, 05 Aug 2008 14:27:35 -0400 Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2008 18:28:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Pedro Alves Cc: Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [MI non-stop 06/11, RFA/RFC] Report non-stop availability, and allow to enable everything with one command. Message-ID: <20080805182735.GA7381@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Pedro Alves , Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200806282054.03092.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200807281857.49206.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200808041658.58988.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200808051730.53218.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200808051730.53218.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2008-08/txt/msg00082.txt.bz2 On Tue, Aug 05, 2008 at 05:30:50PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > On Monday 04 August 2008 13:58:57, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > The question is why the connection setup needs to know if we're in > > non-stop, and why -- which question we discuss below. You have to know whether you're connecting in non-stop, because if you connect in all-stop the target might have to stop a running thread that it would leave running if you connected in non-stop. I can't follow all the possibilities being juggled in this conversation. But why not just set non-stop in advance, regardless of the target, and then issue an error at run / target remote / wherever if non-stop is not available? > We leaves some slack to add new modes like this, which would > combine (1) and (2): > > set prefered-execution-mode > "all-stop" > prefer all-stop, but if the target doesn't support it, fine. > "non-stop" > prefer non-stop, but if the target doesn't support it, fine. > "force-all-stop" > require all-stop, fail if the target refuses it. > "force-non-stop" > require all-stop, fail if the target refuses it. Please don't, the user should know what they get. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery