Re: [PATCH 3/9 v7] Introduce target_{stop,continue}_ptid

[Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>]

On 09/17/2014 07:20 PM, Doug Evans wrote:

>>> I thought about target_resume.  It was an semi-interesting case
>>> that immediately popped into my head at the time.
>>> And then I tried to think how the typical reader would interpret it.
>>> I'm not a typical reader, but I think(!) people would expect it to be
>>> asynchronous in the sense that the inferior is resumed and
>>> control returns to gdb.  IOW target_resume doesn't also wait
>>> for the inferior to stop after it has been resumed.
>>> Therefore I see no need to rename it (say to target_resume_no_wait).

OK.  I was reading it like "a convention where all async functions
ended with _async or _no_wait" would be applied throughout.  I could
see instead that restricted to cases where we have two variants -- I
guess that's where my understanding was.

> re: "more important things":
> Eh?

I'm sorry about that.  I clearly overreacted...

> Characterizing this as spending time on less important things bothers me.
> gdb has several problems I wish people had spent a bit more time on.
> [OTOH, I'm not suggesting spending *too* much time on this.
> That should go without saying though.]

> 
>> Please
>> don't take me wrong.  I'm in "how to communicate better mode".  I would
>> have liked to have been able to reply quicker to these emails, but I
>> just don't know how -- fyi, today's and yesterday's emails on this
>> subject took me a few hours.
> 
> If the situation were reversed and I didn't have time at that moment,
> I'd have just said it's an interesting idea but let's table this discussion
> until we can collect more info.

OK.  I'll be sure to ask for clarification earlier too, as I seem to
have misunderstood what you were actually suggesting.

Thanks,
Pedro Alves