From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 752 invoked by alias); 26 Jul 2012 08:43:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 737 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Jul 2012 08:42:59 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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; Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:42:41 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q6Q8gc4G027803 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 26 Jul 2012 04:42:39 -0400 Received: from host2.jankratochvil.net (ovpn-116-33.ams2.redhat.com [10.36.116.33]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q6Q8gYfG009232 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 26 Jul 2012 04:42:37 -0400 Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2012 08:43:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: "Metzger, Markus T" Cc: Tom Tromey , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , "markus.t.metzger@gmail.com" , "palves@redhat.com" , "pmuldoon@redhat.com" Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] gdb, python: update threads in Inferior.threads () Message-ID: <20120726084228.GB16614@host2.jankratochvil.net> References: <1343204804-23172-1-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <878ve7keby.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: 2012-07/txt/msg00605.txt.bz2 On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 09:49:44 +0200, Metzger, Markus T wrote: > > Otherwise looks good to me. > > Thanks. Who would be the approver of the change? I believe Tom approved it this way. BTW instead of those two runto calls it would be cheaper to: gdb_breakpoint "check_threads" gdb_continue_to_breakpoint "check_threads" ".* pthread_barrier_wait .*" and gdb_breakpoint [gdb_get_line_number "Break here."] gdb_continue_to_breakpoint "Break-here" {.* Break here\. .*} (The second parameter to gdb_continue_to_breakpoint is not mandatory.) Otherwise you do the whole spawn of gdbserver 2 more times. Thanks, Jan