From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8396 invoked by alias); 17 Mar 2009 05:30:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 8388 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Mar 2009 05:30:27 -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; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 05:30:23 +0000 Received: (qmail 29816 invoked from network); 17 Mar 2009 05:30:21 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 17 Mar 2009 05:30:21 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Vladimir Prus Subject: Re: [RFC] Broken -thread-info output in non-stop mode. Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 06:05:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Marc Khouzam , laszlo.benedek@ericsson.com References: <200903151825.14242.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200903161249.19207.vladimir@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200903161249.19207.vladimir@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200903170530.20077.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/msg00298.txt.bz2 On Monday 16 March 2009 09:49:18, Vladimir Prus wrote: > On Sunday 15 March 2009 21:25:13 Pedro Alves wrote: > Ouch. But wait, how is 'resume' is done? My impression was that all > resumptions of the as direct result on user commands are done via > 'proceed'. Looking at CVS HEAD, I see one use of proceed in > proceed_after_attach_callback that I cannot immediately correlate with > a user command, but all others are clearly correlated. So, maybe MI > should output ^running only when proceed is called? You're pretty much right. If we need to carry the target a bit, we'll only proceed it in a continuation, or call target_resume directly. > Well, they did not output ^running for 10 years, but it does not mean > it was bad. KDevelop users did complain that issuing CLI commands resulted > in no feedback that the application is actually running. We can suppress > this in async mode, but then the solution starts to include so many > assumptions that it makes me nervous ;-) I take it you'll make KDevelop handle ^done + *running at some point. :-) > Let me know what you think about > the proceed idea. I like it, thanks! I'm about to post a mini patch series implementing it. In the process I cleaned up a few things that were sort of in the way. -- Pedro Alves