From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30714 invoked by alias); 14 Aug 2008 17:53:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 30705 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Aug 2008 17:53:43 -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, 14 Aug 2008 17:53:04 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 571AF98424; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:53:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42FF498243; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:53:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KTh0Q-0004Gm-KT; Thu, 14 Aug 2008 13:53:02 -0400 Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:53:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Pedro Alves Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [3/7] Adjust the bsd-uthread target Message-ID: <20080814175302.GE15804@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Pedro Alves , Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200808080236.04076.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200808082341.23994.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20080809013130.GA28372@caradoc.them.org> <200808111432.50086.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200808111432.50086.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/msg00372.txt.bz2 On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 02:32:49PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > I actually started out using a new predicate, but then got rid > of it, as it looked more confusing to me. > > There are a few calls than want to see all threads. context_switch (while > it still exists :-) ) and handle_inferior_event want to. The > breakpoints.c and infcmd.c calls don't care currently. > > Can I ask you to not do that now, please? I can come back to it > as an follow-up cleanup. I've got several patches that touch > contexts where this form was used, and it would be a lot of work > to rebase and retest them all for not much gain. A single patch > to cleanup and introduce a new predicate can be made in one sweep. Yeah, this patch is OK; we can examine the uses again later. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery