From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23770 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2014 18:41:22 -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 23296 invoked by uid 89); 10 Jul 2014 18:41:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 10 Jul 2014 18:41:17 +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 s6AIfE2S008612 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Thu, 10 Jul 2014 14:41:14 -0400 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 s6AIfCNk024599; Thu, 10 Jul 2014 14:41:13 -0400 Message-ID: <53BEDE48.4040704@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 18:41:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Doug Evans , GDB Patches Subject: Re: [PATCH, doc RFA]: Fix pr 14236 References: <21305.45035.310308.253836@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> <21434.50706.899640.768621@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> In-Reply-To: <21434.50706.899640.768621@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-07/txt/msg00213.txt.bz2 Hi Doug, (FYI, the subject line made this get out of my radar.) On 07/07/2014 05:08 PM, Doug Evans wrote: > Hi. > It's been three months. > If there are no comments I will press ahead with this. > The existing asynchronous behaviour of "interrupt" without an "&" is a bug worth fixing IMO. > > I can certainly make the new functionality dependent on some flag, if people think it's worth preserving the broken behaviour as the default. I'd like to take a better look at this. I browsed it quickly when you first posted it, and I recall thinking that you may have a problem with new threads appearing (or not listed because nothing has refreshed the list). I address this somewhat with the existing target methods in the all-stop-on-top-of-nonstop patch (you can see it on the list a while ago). More comments soon after I take a better look. Meanwhile you know what I'll probably comment on. :-) -- Pedro Alves