From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23670 invoked by alias); 2 Mar 2009 19:55:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 23661 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Mar 2009 19:55:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp.nokia.com (HELO mgw-mx06.nokia.com) (192.100.122.233) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Mar 2009 19:55:33 +0000 Received: from esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com (esebh106.ntc.nokia.com [172.21.138.213]) by mgw-mx06.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.6/Switch-3.2.6) with ESMTP id n22JtFt8018444 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 21:55:28 +0200 Received: from vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com ([10.160.244.30]) by esebh106.NOE.Nokia.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 2 Mar 2009 21:55:27 +0200 Received: from mgw-int01.ntc.nokia.com ([172.21.143.96]) by vaebh104.NOE.Nokia.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 2 Mar 2009 21:55:27 +0200 Received: from troll08.nokia.trolltech.de (bett-ws017.europe.nokia.com [172.25.167.41]) by mgw-int01.ntc.nokia.com (Switch-3.2.5/Switch-3.2.5) with SMTP id n22JtM3n024153 for ; Mon, 2 Mar 2009 21:55:25 +0200 Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 19:55:00 -0000 From: Oswald Buddenhagen To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: make attaching to stopped processes work under windows Message-ID: <20090302195625.GA16983@troll08.nokia.trolltech.de> References: <20090226192552.GB15958@troll08.nokia.trolltech.de> <20090228004414.GA21767@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20090302100651.GA8157@troll08.nokia.trolltech.de> <20090302172305.GK26056@adacore.com> <20090302182826.GA11548@troll08.nokia.trolltech.de> <20090226192552.GB15958@troll08.nokia.trolltech.de> <20090228004414.GA21767@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20090226192552.GB15958@troll08.nokia.trolltech.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090228004414.GA21767@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20090226192552.GB15958@troll08.nokia.trolltech.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17+20080114 (2008-01-14) X-Nokia-AV: Clean 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: 2009-03/txt/msg00018.txt.bz2 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.