From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2972 invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2012 22:22:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 2947 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Nov 2012 22:22:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,KHOP_RCVD_TRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_YE X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-bk0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-bk0-f41.google.com) (209.85.214.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 22:22:47 +0000 Received: by mail-bk0-f41.google.com with SMTP id jg9so6974150bkc.0 for ; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:22:46 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.204.150.218 with SMTP id z26mr7384186bkv.95.1354227765966; Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:22:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.192] (37-4-31-223-dynip.superkabel.de. [37.4.31.223]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id z5sm2165897bkv.11.2012.11.29.14.22.44 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 29 Nov 2012 14:22:45 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <50B7E033.5050208@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 22:22:00 -0000 From: Mircea Gherzan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0.11) Gecko/20121122 Icedove/10.0.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Tromey CC: Mircea Gherzan , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, keven.boell@intel.com, marc.khouzam@ericsson.com, vladimir@codesourcery.com Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/3] MI: add the -catch-load and -catch-unload commands References: <1354031591-20226-1-git-send-email-mircea.gherzan@intel.com> <87obiidfxl.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <50B78BBB.1000907@intel.com> <87ehjc3yn2.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <87ehjc3yn2.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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: 2012-11/txt/msg00905.txt.bz2 Am 29.11.2012 22:08, schrieb Tom Tromey: >>>>>> "Mircea" == Mircea Gherzan writes: > >>> It seems more consistent to me to suppress the notification and then >>> print the new breakpoint information as the result of this command. > > Mircea> This has been fixed in v7 of the series. > > There were some other review comments you haven't addressed yet: more > comments for the one function in breakpoint.c, and possible raciness in > the test case. The possible raciness has also been addressed in v7, since no more async notifications are present: we just use the ^done reply to carry the catchpoint info. Furthermore, "mi_send_resuming_command" is used now. I just wanted to collect some feedback regarding the suppression of the async notifications before sending v8 (hopefully the last iteration). -- Mircea