From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11252 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2010 17:55:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 11243 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Feb 2010 17:55:18 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:55:15 +0000 Received: (qmail 22958 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2010 17:55:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 17 Feb 2010 17:55:13 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Jan Kratochvil Subject: Re: [patch] STT_GNU_IFUNC support Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 17:55:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.31-19-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Daniel Jacobowitz References: <20100214203512.GA838@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <201002171452.36043.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20100217173338.GA32328@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20100217173338.GA32328@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201002171755.10132.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: 2010-02/txt/msg00430.txt.bz2 On Wednesday 17 February 2010 17:33:38, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > > What about making this GNU-IFUNC inferior call scheduling follow the "step" > > > policy? Maybe the whole inferior calls should follow the "step" policy? > > > > Or "on", should be the same. > > Not so. I find "step" to be the reasonable default (and it has been so for > a long time before me in RHEL/Fedora) and I find GNU-IFUNC resolving with > locked scheduler also as a reasonable default. I do not find > "scheduler-locking on" as a reasonable GDB default. > Oh, of course not. I was answering the first question, about the specific infcall to resolve "strcmp" when the user did "p strcmp" or "b strcmp". I assume you meant to sched-lock that call, which would be the same as "on", but maybe I misunderstood what you meant. A reply to the second question would be similar to the "That's another story." reply. ;-) -- Pedro Alves