From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 46094 invoked by alias); 19 Oct 2015 13:37:27 -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 46084 invoked by uid 89); 19 Oct 2015 13:37:27 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:37:25 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-04.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.41]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1ZoAcs-0003qP-Ps from Luis_Gustavo@mentor.com ; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 06:37:22 -0700 Received: from [172.30.0.74] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-04.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.41) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.224.2; Mon, 19 Oct 2015 06:37:21 -0700 Reply-To: Luis Machado 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> <5624EEFE.7010105@redhat.com> To: Pedro Alves , From: Luis Machado Message-ID: <5624F20F.9050201@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:37:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5624EEFE.7010105@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-10/txt/msg00338.txt.bz2 On 10/19/2015 11:24 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > 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. > Thanks. Pushed now as 29090fb629734b7980f058f4a7e24a0369e9bb49.