From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16512 invoked by alias); 25 Nov 2007 18:56:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 16502 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Nov 2007 18:56:18 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from ug-out-1314.google.com (HELO ug-out-1314.google.com) (66.249.92.168) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 25 Nov 2007 18:56:12 +0000 Received: by ug-out-1314.google.com with SMTP id o2so1117048uge for ; Sun, 25 Nov 2007 10:56:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.185.15 with SMTP id i15mr1901255huf.1196016969367; Sun, 25 Nov 2007 10:56:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?78.130.98.201? ( [78.130.98.201]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 34sm2292834nfu.2007.11.25.10.56.07 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sun, 25 Nov 2007 10:56:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4749C544.9050909@portugalmail.pt> Date: Sun, 25 Nov 2007 18:56:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; pt-BR; rv:1.8.1.9) Gecko/20071031 Thunderbird/2.0.0.9 Mnenhy/0.7.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [win32] Fix suspend count handling References: <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> <20071124053341.GA4214@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <474832C2.7030307@champenstudios.com> <20071124204828.GB4928@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <47498A4F.3050101@champenstudios.com> <20071125181316.GB7689@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> In-Reply-To: <20071125181316.GB7689@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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/msg00470.txt.bz2 Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Sun, Nov 25, 2007 at 03:44:31PM +0100, Lerele wrote: >> What do you think? > > There is some code in win32-nat.c which was a result of my uncertainty > about the Windows debugging API. I thought that since we have a couple > more eyes on this now someone might know a bit more about how this > works. Understanding the foundations is never a bad idea. > > I'm not interested in gdbserver or what you think may be happening in > the future. If the SuspendThread/ResumeThread code can be eliminated > from win32-nat.c along with all of the bookkeeping that is required to > avoid races then it may be a good idea to do so. Whether it is a good > idea in light of future enhancements is a decision I can make but, > personally, I rarely see a good reason to keep code complication around > for the future unless someone is actually planning to do the work. > > We can stop talking about this now since it is apparent that no one > actually knows the answer to my question. > 100% Agreed. Just to let you know that I plan on looking at this. I'm specifically wanting to look at what we're doing when/if we need to step over something with all threads but the current stopped -- if that is supposed to happen, it looks like we're broken, we should be suspending all the threads but the current before resuming. -- Pedro Alves