From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18734 invoked by alias); 31 May 2012 14:25:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 18699 invoked by uid 22791); 31 May 2012 14:25:41 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RDNS_NONE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from Unknown (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 31 May 2012 14:24:02 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1Sa6Hk-0006Mz-8v from Yao_Qi@mentor.com ; Thu, 31 May 2012 07:23:32 -0700 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-02.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.96.206]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Thu, 31 May 2012 07:23:06 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-02.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.96.168) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.1.289.1; Thu, 31 May 2012 07:22:43 -0700 Message-ID: <4FC77EDB.8040005@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 14:25:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] define and check itset References: <1338470075-12254-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1338470075-12254-2-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <4FC7734E.5020401@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4FC7734E.5020401@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" 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: 2012-05/txt/msg01084.txt.bz2 On 05/31/2012 09:34 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > What good does it do to put this in ahead of its prerequisites? > Can we please stop trying to put the cart before the horse? > I'm trying to help with the async stuff, but the constant push > in trying to put other bits in first frustrates me. :-/ > I don't want to frustrates anyone here. This bit doesn't have any prerequisites, as I said, it is quite isolated from other parts. I don't see anything wrong this bits go in first. The review process to patch series 'run all-stop on top of non-stop' is not smooth, which forces me to start to push this part first. > The itsets bits need to be last. I'm not even sure the syntax is > what we want to end up with at all. Last I touched them, I had > wanted to spend a while trying to unify the concept of "current > thread" with the itset. There's a disconnect that gets in the > way a bit. I don't know your plan, and you are free to change whatever you'd like to. AFAICS, the syntax looks fine to me, so I posted them. -- Yao (齐尧)