From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32343 invoked by alias); 14 Oct 2009 02:10:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 32250 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Oct 2009 02:10:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 14 Oct 2009 02:10:17 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53E6D2BAC6F; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:10:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id jp15JI8xnxpX; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:10:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 089F72BAC57; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 22:10:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 46680F58A0; Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:10:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 02:10:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Hui Zhu Cc: Michael Snyder , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [RFA] let record_resume fail immediately on error Message-ID: <20091014021007.GO5272@adacore.com> References: <4AA68C92.7070905@vmware.com> <4ABE5E8D.8080209@vmware.com> <20090928160728.GB9003@adacore.com> <20090929212910.GG6362@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 2009-10/txt/msg00294.txt.bz2 Hui, It looks like you might be waiting for input from someone, or for approval? I confess that I'm still completely confused as to what the problem is and how you're resolving it. I don't want to be the one slowing you down, so if Michael is happy, I'm happy. But if you'd like me to take a look, can you try to explain the issue in a different way? For instance, I asked: > In other words: If an error occurs during recording, somehow > the inferior "runs away", meaning runs until completion? > Do we lose the process record? I was mentioning this as being the current behavior, which presumably is wrong. Am I correct? I also asked: > Based on the transcript of the session *with* the patch you propose, > it looks like GDB is now just stuck on that instruction that it does > not know how to record. Is that really progress? I am now refering to the situation *AFTER* your patch is applied. I couldn't understand the answer to sent or how it was relevant to my question. -- Joel