From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 130231 invoked by alias); 9 Sep 2015 14:51:21 -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 130222 invoked by uid 89); 9 Sep 2015 14:51:20 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=no 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; Wed, 09 Sep 2015 14:51:20 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DDEF08C1C3; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 14:51:18 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t89EpH7S007478; Wed, 9 Sep 2015 10:51:18 -0400 Message-ID: <55F04765.9020206@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2015 14:51:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Metzger, Markus T" CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH 13/17] btrace: non-stop References: <1441794909-32718-1-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <1441794909-32718-14-git-send-email-markus.t.metzger@intel.com> <55F01DEC.4030209@redhat.com> <55F03852.7030200@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-09/txt/msg00134.txt.bz2 On 09/09/2015 03:08 PM, Metzger, Markus T wrote: >>> >>> Wouldn't the 1st or 2nd pattern skip any $gdb_prompt before the pattern? >> >> Yes. Is that a problem? Don't we always get another prompt after that >> error? > > No, we don't. We have a single prompt that appears somewhere in the output. > > (gdb) thread apply all continue That seems to be root of the problem. That'll do a synchronous continue on each thread, one by one. I think that what you want is instead: (gdb) thread apply all continue& And that way you get a single prompt before any breakpoint is hit. > OK. This is temporary. I have not followed the discussion. Can I force-push > and remove such a user branch? I don't think you can force-push today, but you can delete branches, so the usual workaround of doing delete+push to emulate force-push works fine. (Myself, I only use the user branches in the master repo to hand off series for review and testing convenience, and do development / backup elsewhere.) Thanks, Pedro Alves