Re: make attaching to stopped processes work under windows

[Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@trolltech.de>]

On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 07:44:14PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 08:25:52PM +0100, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> > 
>

> Do you actually have a use cause that requires attaching to suspended
> threads?
>
> > +	 This is primarily meant to cover the case where someone
> > +	 creates a process in suspended state and hands it over
> > +	 to gdb

do you need a use case for that use case? or do i need to explain the
concept?

> Suspending random threads like this is usually a bad idea.
>
> > +	 Note that we are not trying to handle multi-threaded
> > +	 situations, as these are likely to be too complex anyway.

i think that makes it sufficiently clear that i have considered the
risks.

On Mon, Mar 02, 2009 at 09:17:50PM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> As someone who have certainly read the patch, I can assure you that
> Chris's question didn't sound like it was answered in the comment.
>
well, then i would be thankful for questions that somehow indicate what
is missing from the comment or why it is entirely irrelevant. i made an
assertion and expect it to be discussed, not ignored. what cgf did
left me with a blank stare and i find *that* rude towards me.