From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2334 invoked by alias); 24 Nov 2007 14:21:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 2326 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Nov 2007 14:21:36 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from gw.sprintaddict.net (HELO champenstudios.com) (80.91.89.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:21:28 +0000 Received: from [192.168.1.5] (164.Red-80-36-45.staticIP.rima-tde.net [80.36.45.164]) (authenticated bits=0) by champenstudios.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id lAOEDprv031190 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-DSS-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Sat, 24 Nov 2007 15:13:52 +0100 Message-ID: <47483362.3060805@champenstudios.com> Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 14:21:00 -0000 From: Lerele User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [win32] Fix suspend count handling References: <47437D3A.3000107@portugalmail.pt> <000001c82c31$4a57b220$df071660$@u-strasbg.fr> <4053daab0711210543w4b241e1ek2371e887f3c4f7d2@mail.gmail.com> <000401c82c48$a450df10$ecf29d30$@u-strasbg.fr> <4053daab0711210708o607018b9n8b63147a8498a207@mail.gmail.com> <4053daab0711211019r15f3a862g677080b65b4d8e71@mail.gmail.com> <4744BCCE.60705@portugalmail.pt> <20071123010744.GA31180@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <4746A922.30404@champenstudios.com> <47471C47.80909@champenstudios.com> <47481C2F.4010009@portugalmail.pt> In-Reply-To: <47481C2F.4010009@portugalmail.pt> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: 2007-11/txt/msg00451.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves escribió: > Lerele wrote: > >> >> I'd also like to ask you a question, concerning a comment from Pedro >> several messages back that has stayed around in my mind since then. >> >> It's not related with this specific thread title, but since it's >> gdbserver/win32 related, I haven't found appropriate to open a new >> thread just for this simple question. >> >> The issue is near the end of: >> http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2007-11/msg00041.html >> >> It's about the fact of gdb win32-nat.c some time ago having the >> interrupt functionality similar to the one that has been recently >> implemented using SuspendThread (versus using DebugBreak kind of >> functions). Pedro commented back then that win32-nat.c did have >> sometime in the past a similar implementation [that must have been >> dropped]. >> Do you know/remember if it was dropped for a specific reason? >> > > Humm, I guess I mistaked win32-nat.c for the winpdo-nat.c > files on Apple's gdb: > > See in: > http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/tarballs/other/gdb-186.1.tar.gz > > > In src/gdb-next/winpdo-nat.c, you'll see a SuspendThreads mechanism. > The file header states 1996 as the latest copyright year, but they > may have easilly failed to update it. I'm not sure if win32-nat > ever had this mechanism, or if it was only added by Apple. Our > cvs history only goes back till 1999. > > I did say: "I *think* that if...". :-) > Sorry, I misunderstood "you'll see that once a similar method was used." as being an assertion. Anyway there seems to be a reason not to SuspendThread, whether there was or wasn't such implementation in the past. Leo.