From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id Oq/BK4IcxWNbBRgAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 04:44:34 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id A5F151E128; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 04:44:34 -0500 (EST) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=PjfhGJEf; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60B141E110 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 04:44:34 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61C693858422 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 09:44:31 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 61C693858422 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1673862271; bh=SAl9HvOQb9QAtL2W+SlWMmnqX8JVWCWf0fVVpc6++yg=; h=Date:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=PjfhGJEfLbNr54BOU4bzzBHZqcu2tSrXQmXKrh9wdHCopcqQXYOqCY7M1PFNFCita CSI/fD7k5LOunR2EHqGw7V5ltL5f15Vnmc3wdIzvhvjehOrtqsLJWbNrX2N4HmQ1H9 vG/SMQILrUez8vZ77uD7jNjkwcETE8zyu+1fH0kE= Received: from lndn.lancelotsix.com (vps-42846194.vps.ovh.net [IPv6:2001:41d0:801:2000::2400]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 46FC23858C78 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 09:44:10 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 46FC23858C78 Received: from ubuntu.lan (cust120-dsl54.idnet.net [212.69.54.120]) by lndn.lancelotsix.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 24A3E80AC5; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 09:44:09 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2023 09:44:02 +0000 To: Andrew Burgess Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/12] gdb: add timeouts for inferior function calls Message-ID: <20230116094320.nhriuwq4nrm4zavk@ubuntu.lan> References: <20221104231700.evhnzbuwexevh2hd@ubuntu.lan> <87mt6mfkgx.fsf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87mt6mfkgx.fsf@redhat.com> X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.11 (lndn.lancelotsix.com [0.0.0.0]); Mon, 16 Jan 2023 09:44:09 +0000 (UTC) X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Lancelot SIX via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Lancelot SIX Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" Hi, > > It seems to me that only having the setting for the indirect call > > timeout would make the interface simpler. > > > > That being said, once you have implemented the mechanism for the > > "indirect" calls, "direct" call timeout implementation comes for free. > > I guess this was your reasoning. > > That was indeed why I provided both - it pretty much came for free. > Like you say, it might offer some benefits in a GDB scripting setup. > > If you feel really strongly then I can drop it, but I don't feel it adds > much additional maintenance overhead. That's OK with me, as you say the extra maintenance overhead is close to none. Best, Lancelot.