From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27398 invoked by alias); 19 Jun 2008 10:23:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 27386 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Jun 2008 10:23:48 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from imr2.ericy.com (HELO imr2.ericy.com) (198.24.6.3) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:23:21 +0000 Received: from eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se (eusrcmw751.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.77.51]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m5JANCms029174; Thu, 19 Jun 2008 05:23:13 -0500 Received: from ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se ([142.133.1.72]) by eusrcmw751.eamcs.ericsson.se with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Thu, 19 Jun 2008 05:23:31 -0500 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: [non-stop] 00/10 non-stop mode Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:57:00 -0000 Message-ID: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA04E1BD76@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> References: <200806152357.52177.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200806190457.59551.pedro@codesourcery.com> <18521.58024.181940.616509@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <200806190607.31652.pedro@codesourcery.com> From: "Marc Khouzam" To: "Pedro Alves" , "Nick Roberts" Cc: X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2008-06/txt/msg00351.txt.bz2 > > If non-stop is available, under what circumstance would someone choose = to > > use all-stop? > > When someone wants all-stop behaviour. :-) When we first discussed non-stop debugging, I also thought that once it was available, there would be no reason for all-stop. However, after talking to different people, it seems that it can come down to a matter of taste and that some users prefer all-stop. Also, from what I understand, non-stop was a necessary step to get to multi-process. Some of the users I've spoken to didn't actually mind all-stop within a single process (for threads), as long as multi-process=20 was non-stop. All this to say that it does seem that all-stop may still be chosen by some. Marc