From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25579 invoked by alias); 30 Aug 2011 11:56:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 25568 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Aug 2011 11:56:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:56:31 +0000 Received: from int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p7UBuVVo003420 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:56:31 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-38.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.38]) by int-mx09.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p7UBuTGf009861 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 07:56:31 -0400 Received: from host1.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p7UBuSCX021346; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:56:28 +0200 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host1.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id p7UBuRIF021340; Tue, 30 Aug 2011 13:56:27 +0200 Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2011 11:56:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: pfee@talk21.com Cc: Doug Evans , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] stept, nextt, finisht, untilt, continuet Message-ID: <20110830115627.GA21003@host1.jankratochvil.net> References: <20110830014851.78030246131@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> <20110830091623.GA5329@host1.jankratochvil.net> <1314698487.57217.YahooMailRC@web86705.mail.ird.yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1314698487.57217.YahooMailRC@web86705.mail.ird.yahoo.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2011-08/txt/msg00593.txt.bz2 On Tue, 30 Aug 2011 12:01:27 +0200, pfee@talk21.com wrote: > I like the 'step' mode of scheduler-locking, but often wish it applied to the > "next" command, not just step. I agree, it does not apply to the continue-over-call part of `next'. But that is a bug which should be fixed. > My suggestion would be to create a "set scheduler-locking next" mode in which > both "step" and "next" operate with other threads locked out. Do you think the "step" mode would be still useful if "next" exists? Thanks, Jan