From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14637 invoked by alias); 9 Mar 2009 18:31:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 14628 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Mar 2009 18:31:51 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:31:45 +0000 Received: (qmail 17077 invoked from network); 9 Mar 2009 18:31:43 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 9 Mar 2009 18:31:43 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] catch syscall -- try 4 -- Architecture-independent part Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 18:31:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: =?iso-8859-1?q?S=E9rgio_Durigan_J=FAnior?= , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <1232929831.26873.22.camel@miki> <1236539758.28243.6.camel@miki> <20090309131856.GA16796@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20090309131856.GA16796@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200903091831.43521.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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/msg00115.txt.bz2 On Monday 09 March 2009 13:18:56, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > Not sure that the flag exists any more, but you're trying to avoid it > > > when called by startup_inferior. =A0I suppose you could use the > > > inferior_created observer (not new_inferior! =A0The distinction is not > > > too clear in the manual but that one is too early). =A0The problem is, > > > again, that this flag needs to be per-inferior. > > >=20 > > > Pedro, any thoughts? Makes sense to me. Alternatively, can we use inf->stop_soon !=3D STOP_QUIETLY for this? This flag is already per-inferior. The only small problem is, since startup_inferior was rewritten to not use wait_for_inferior, we're not setting stop_soon =3D STOP_QUIETLY while in there anymore. We could bring that bit back again. Just something like setting stop_soon =3D STOP_= QUIETLY on entry to startup_inferior, and clear it on exit to NO_STOP_QUIETLY on exit. --=20 Pedro Alves