From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25368 invoked by alias); 18 Feb 2014 16:02:12 -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 25353 invoked by uid 89); 18 Feb 2014 16:02:12 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mtaout29.012.net.il Received: from mtaout29.012.net.il (HELO mtaout29.012.net.il) (80.179.55.185) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 16:01:42 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout29.012.net.il by mtaout29.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0N17009008E79700@mtaout29.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:04:09 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout29.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0N170045X8MX5E60@mtaout29.012.net.il>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:04:09 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 16:02:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Improved ^c support for gdb/guile In-reply-to: <871tz0d5vc.fsf@gnu.org> To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Cc: xdje42@gmail.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, guile-devel@gnu.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83iosc76kz.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT References: <834n3x8o7m.fsf@gnu.org> <83y519788a.fsf@gnu.org> <871tz0d5vc.fsf@gnu.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-02/txt/msg00567.txt.bz2 > From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, guile-devel@gnu.org > Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:20:39 +0100 > > Doug Evans skribis: > > I don’t remember, Eli: do you have patches pending review for these > issues and other MinGW issues in Guile? I don't know, you tell me. I sent several changesets in June, in these messages: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-06/msg00031.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-06/msg00032.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-06/msg00033.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-06/msg00036.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-06/msg00037.html http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-06/msg00039.html In this message: http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-06/msg00057.html you have requested a copyright assignment for applying my patches; that paperwork was done long ago, so the changes can be admitted. I don't know if they were, though. One thing I do know is that the request to gnulib maintainers to include hstrerror, which I posted, at your request, here http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2013-06/msg00042.html was left without any followups. Also, since the only way I could get a functional MinGW Guile was to configure it without threads, I would suggest that this be the default for MinGW, but that isn't a big deal. > The non-pthread code is used when Guile is built without pthread > support. In that case, the async is queued directly from the signal > handler. So why cannot this code be used by GDB? > (I think we should aim to get rid of the signal-delivery thread > eventually, and I remember Mark mentioned it before too.) Right, which raises again the question why use in GDB something that is slated for deletion. Btw, where does the value of SCM_USE_PTHREAD_THREADS come from? Is it something defined by the installed Guile headers?