From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7392 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2015 13:24:18 -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 7376 invoked by uid 89); 19 Oct 2015 13:24:18 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_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; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:24:17 +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 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4507391C17; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:24:16 +0000 (UTC) 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 t9JDOEhX010927; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 09:24:15 -0400 Message-ID: <5624EEFE.7010105@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:24:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Luis Machado , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make GDB wait for events after handling target File-I/O References: <1440723498-19075-1-git-send-email-lgustavo@codesourcery.com> <55F17EC8.5010906@redhat.com> <5621505F.8080506@codesourcery.com> <5624B633.7030102@redhat.com> <5624EE71.4070403@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <5624EE71.4070403@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg00337.txt.bz2 On 10/19/2015 02:21 PM, Luis Machado wrote: > On 10/19/2015 07:21 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> On 10/16/2015 08:30 PM, Luis Machado wrote: >> >>> How does the attached update look? >> >> Is there a reason to keep the "rs->waiting_for_stop_reply = 1;" lines? > > No, that was a mistake since we inverted the logic. What about the > following? > > Now we'll only set rs->waiting_for_stop_reply to 1 when resuming in > "all-stop" mode. > Thanks. This version LGTM. -- Pedro Alves