From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10016 invoked by alias); 3 Sep 2013 20:32:53 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 10006 invoked by uid 89); 3 Sep 2013 20:32:53 -0000 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Sep 2013 20:32:53 +0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r83KWowt015035 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 3 Sep 2013 16:32:50 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r83KWmX4020510; Tue, 3 Sep 2013 16:32:49 -0400 Message-ID: <52264770.7060200@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 03 Sep 2013 20:32:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans CC: gdb-patches Subject: Re: [RFA] Remove unnecessary call to save_current_inferior References: <5224E183.8080500@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-09/txt/msg00107.txt.bz2 On 09/03/2013 09:17 PM, Doug Evans wrote: > On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 12:05 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 08/29/2013 07:11 PM, Doug Evans wrote: >>> Hi. >>> AFAICT the call to save_current_inferior here is unnecessary. >> >> What if there are no threads in the current inferior? > > I considered that, at least I tried to ... > Does make_cleanup_restore_current_thread/do_restore_current_thread_cleanup > not handle it? Sorry, I remembered incorrectly. Indeed it does. -- Pedro Alves