From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29952 invoked by alias); 5 Nov 2002 20:28:21 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 29939 invoked from network); 5 Nov 2002 20:28:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 5 Nov 2002 20:28:19 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B50273D33 for ; Tue, 5 Nov 2002 15:28:19 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3DC829E3.4090603@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 05 Nov 2002 12:28:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Stand resume() on its head Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-11/txt/msg00054.txt.bz2 Hello, There have now been several discussion threads that lead to the conclusion that target->resume (ptid_t, int, enum target_signal) needs changing. At present the suggestion is to add a parameter to indicate schedule locking and similar operations. I'd like to propose a different approach. Instead of passing to resume() what to do, have resume() iterate over all the threads asking each what it should do - suspend, step, run, signal, ... I think, in the end, GDB will need to do something like this any way (how else is GDB going to handle suspended threads?) so might as well start earlier rather than later :-) (thinking out loud) Andrew