From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14920 invoked by alias); 13 Nov 2013 09:58:13 -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 14908 invoked by uid 89); 13 Nov 2013 09:58:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:58:11 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAD9w2DH004506 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 13 Nov 2013 04:58:02 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id rAD9w1Ve008106; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 04:58:02 -0500 Message-ID: <52834D28.6020506@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 09:59:00 -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@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't evaluate condition for non-matching thread References: <5281F6DB.2010603@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-11/txt/msg00341.txt.bz2 On 11/13/2013 03:01 AM, Doug Evans wrote: > Is there a reason the current code is the way it is? I can't think of any. I'm actually surprised we do this. We'd get the same effect if/when we push the thread check down to the target, and I wouldn't imagine this "always eval condition first" blocking such new feature. > [I realize conditions can have side-effects, to, e.g., collect data, > but the user has made the breakpoint thread-specific already.] Yeah. There are several other ways to get to same result, so it's not a real issue, IMO. > If you think this warrants a NEWS entry I can certainly add one. I don't think so. > Ok to check in? OK. Thanks, -- Pedro Alves