From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30849 invoked by alias); 6 Mar 2007 23:22:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 30841 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Mar 2007 23:22:47 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from elrond.portugalmail.pt (HELO elrond.portugalmail.pt) (195.245.179.181) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 Mar 2007 23:22:42 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elrond.portugalmail.pt (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6B353AF3A; Tue, 6 Mar 2007 23:19:29 +0000 (WET) Received: from elrond.portugalmail.pt ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (elrond.portugalmail.pt [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 02q73M2CYpWW; Tue, 6 Mar 2007 23:19:29 +0000 (WET) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (88.210.122.193.rev.optimus.pt [88.210.122.193]) (Authenticated sender: pedro_alves@portugalmail.pt) by elrond.portugalmail.pt (Postfix) with ESMTP id F29763AF5E; Tue, 6 Mar 2007 23:06:27 +0000 (WET) Message-ID: <45EDF4A7.6090001@portugalmail.pt> Date: Tue, 06 Mar 2007 23:22:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; pt-BR; rv:1.8.0.10) Gecko/20070221 Thunderbird/1.5.0.10 Mnenhy/0.7.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lerele CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [Patch] Win32 gdbserver new interrupt support, and attach to process fix. References: <45DF7E27.10102@champenstudios.com> <45E211A5.6080905@portugalmail.pt> <45EB4D5A.7070703@champenstudios.com> <45EB6AC8.3090307@portugalmail.pt> <45EC1815.2000002@champenstudios.com> <45EC7842.6020406@portugalmail.pt> <45EDD148.3090200@portugalmail.pt> <45EDE830.1080400@champenstudios.com> In-Reply-To: <45EDE830.1080400@champenstudios.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 000722-0, 06-03-2007), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean 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: 2007-03/txt/msg00065.txt.bz2 Lerele wrote: > I'd just leave the last option. > That's according with my personal preferences, for all advantages I > wroite in previous messages. I tend to agree. > Does WinCe have available Set/GetPriorityClass, SetProcessAffinityMask, WinCE <= 5 - There are other functions that would have the same effect. Dunno about 6. But don't worry, I'll take care of that. Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, I haven't submitted the WinCE support yet. > SuspendThread, ResumeThread? Yes. Same debug API as the big brothers. > I find last option better almost however you look at it, unless > there's some other problem I'm not seeing...maybe having a trillion > threads running or something? I'd be surprised is SuspendThread was noticeably slow for a reasonably large number of threads, but you never know ... Cheers, Pedro Alves