From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29812 invoked by alias); 31 May 2012 15:37:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 29648 invoked by uid 22791); 31 May 2012 15:37:53 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-3.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il (HELO mtaout20.012.net.il) (80.179.55.166) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 31 May 2012 15:37:37 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0M4W00B008OSCW00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Thu, 31 May 2012 18:36:48 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.210.75]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0M4W00ABZ8PBBEI0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Thu, 31 May 2012 18:36:48 +0300 (IDT) Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 15:37:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] define and check itset In-reply-to: <4FC7734E.5020401@redhat.com> To: Pedro Alves Cc: yao@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83ipfc1hwk.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1338470075-12254-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <1338470075-12254-2-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <4FC7734E.5020401@redhat.com> 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: 2012-05/txt/msg01093.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 14:34:06 +0100 > From: Pedro Alves > CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > On 05/31/2012 02:14 PM, Yao Qi wrote: > > > This patch is almost from Pedro's patch, with some minor fixes for the > > new GDB code base and removal of command 'itfocus'. > > > What good does it do to put this in ahead of its prerequisites? > Can we please stop trying to put the cart before the horse? > I'm trying to help with the async stuff, but the constant push > in trying to put other bits in first frustrates me. :-/ > > The itsets bits need to be last. I'm not even sure the syntax is > what we want to end up with at all. Last I touched them, I had > wanted to spend a while trying to unify the concept of "current > thread" with the itset. There's a disconnect that gets in the > way a bit. Should I refrain from reviewing the docs bits for the time being, then?