From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca by simark.ca with LMTP id SuYYO4qv2mOVZicAWB0awg (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 01 Feb 2023 13:29:30 -0500 Received: by simark.ca (Postfix, from userid 112) id EB0061E128; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 13:29:30 -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=qBsFQlyX; 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=-7.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI, RDNS_DYNAMIC,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 Received: from sourceware.org (ip-8-43-85-97.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 A06AA1E0D3 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 13:29:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from server2.sourceware.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E3D13858C2D for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 18:29:30 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 4E3D13858C2D DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1675276170; bh=559tKivUCGhql+Y4NEJaXWl+R0qzx+IklQwHE/bMfNU=; 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=qBsFQlyXNAGateOH4US25cwn0pWUG5VYfoTwnsBVgg5Iu+lcUACNWIt+aFjP7NTZV NeM3jNdmQ07+uXPSOA/CgFiqCBtN9EviaZTDuYjkDlkm9bN+M5BDFdNmvL2Ee/LYHJ 0ENZXQGtSk2HKvmcTA9ss95DqTIBr+JUUDGm5Jvc= Received: from eggs.gnu.org (eggs.gnu.org [IPv6:2001:470:142:3::10]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 459DB3858D33 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2023 18:29:11 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 459DB3858D33 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 1pNHr4-0006gZ-Q4; Wed, 01 Feb 2023 13:29:10 -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 1pNHr4-0007B8-5u; Wed, 01 Feb 2023 13:29:10 -0500 Date: Wed, 01 Feb 2023 20:29:10 +0200 Message-Id: <83fsbpz1c9.fsf@gnu.org> To: Andrew Burgess Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <87sffps2b6.fsf@redhat.com> (message from Andrew Burgess on Wed, 01 Feb 2023 17:50:05 +0000) Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 10/13] gdb: add timeouts for inferior function calls References: <83r0va1smt.fsf@gnu.org> <87sffps2b6.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: Wed, 01 Feb 2023 17:50:05 +0000 > > Eli Zaretskii writes: > > >> Cc: Andrew Burgess > >> Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2023 17:27:15 +0000 > >> From: Andrew Burgess via Gdb-patches > >> > >> gdb/NEWS | 18 ++ > >> gdb/doc/gdb.texinfo | 66 ++++++ > >> gdb/infcall.c | 221 +++++++++++++++++- > >> gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/help.exp | 2 +- > >> gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/infcall-timeout.c | 36 +++ > >> gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/infcall-timeout.exp | 82 +++++++ > >> .../infcall-from-bp-cond-timeout.c | 169 ++++++++++++++ > >> .../infcall-from-bp-cond-timeout.exp | 156 +++++++++++++ > >> 8 files changed, 745 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >> create mode 100644 gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/infcall-timeout.c > >> create mode 100644 gdb/testsuite/gdb.base/infcall-timeout.exp > >> create mode 100644 gdb/testsuite/gdb.threads/infcall-from-bp-cond-timeout.c > >> create mode 100644 gdb/testsuite/gdb.threads/infcall-from-bp-cond-timeout.exp > > > > The documentation parts were already approved, right? > > Yeah, sorry for repeatedly spamming your inbox with this stuff. This > patch can't be merged until the earlier ones have landed, and some of > them had significant changes. > > Is there a good way that I can tag patches to let you know that a > particular patches doesn't need a doc re-review? I do always feel > pretty guilty when I see you've re-looked at a patch you already > approved. Just say early enough in the body of the email that the documentation parts were already approved. TIA