From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id KBzeMieJxWPWORgAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 12:28:07 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id CCABD1E128; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 12:28:07 -0500 (EST) Authentication-Results: simark.ca; dkim=pass (1024-bit key; secure) header.d=sourceware.org header.i=@sourceware.org header.a=rsa-sha256 header.s=default header.b=If9SXUhI; dkim-atps=neutral X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on simark.ca X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (server2.sourceware.org [8.43.85.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D8BC1E0D3 for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 12:28:07 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0C8D385842B for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 17:28:06 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C0C8D385842B DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1673890086; bh=E8MYCTHOhYtbOxfQXKZTgYZ2QV1DigD7OkwEfOdflS8=; h=Date:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:Subject:References:List-Id: List-Unsubscribe:List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe: From:Reply-To:From; b=If9SXUhIMbu2Op26x0++kINRGFd/da4yxBDr8NKWQslfyJVvb4nfDsFYTkriS4PjL XhWoIhMb6+fNoxB1LLt2/1xVwhtFm4IjlfWSrA9Y5MlkW6tJxKLYkdliV0RpAhdi8s RSHCO+sTpxGcAUXpEFcGsdXd+d8rceM4NxAlrtAQ= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 350C0385841A for ; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 17:27:47 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 350C0385841A Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pHTGs-0003nM-GV; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 12:27:46 -0500 Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1pHTGr-0006p7-2l; Mon, 16 Jan 2023 12:27:45 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2023 19:27:52 +0200 Message-Id: <83a62i4cfb.fsf@gnu.org> To: Andrew Burgess Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <87cz7efl8j.fsf@redhat.com> (message from Andrew Burgess on Mon, 16 Jan 2023 17:22:04 +0000) Subject: Re: [PATCH 11/12] gdb: add timeouts for inferior function calls References: <83a65pwi1h.fsf@gnu.org> <87ilh9fkj3.fsf@redhat.com> <83wn5p72w2.fsf@gnu.org> <87cz7efl8j.fsf@redhat.com> X-BeenThere: gdb-patches@sourceware.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Gdb-patches mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , From: Eli Zaretskii via Gdb-patches Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii Errors-To: gdb-patches-bounces+public-inbox=simark.ca@sourceware.org Sender: "Gdb-patches" > From: Andrew Burgess > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2023 17:22:04 +0000 > > Hopefully this explains why I think a minimum 1 second timeout is > acceptable, I wonder, with the explanation above, how you feel about > this now? If GDB is going to stop on the first timeout, then I'm okay with the rest, we just need to make it clear in the manual. Thanks.