From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31568 invoked by alias); 30 Jul 2013 18:10:23 -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 31541 invoked by uid 89); 30 Jul 2013 18:10:23 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-5.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 18:10:22 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r6UIAEYb008055 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 30 Jul 2013 14:10:14 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-128.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.128]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r6UIA8Ma005708 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Tue, 30 Jul 2013 14:10:10 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] fix py-finish-breakpoint.exp with always-async References: <1375116324-32092-1-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <1375116324-32092-8-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <20982.64444.939564.557857@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 18:10:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20982.64444.939564.557857@ruffy.mtv.corp.google.com> (Doug Evans's message of "Mon, 29 Jul 2013 16:33:16 -0700") Message-ID: <87r4efly0w.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00785.txt.bz2 Doug> IOW, it'd be clearer if the patch did: Doug> int was_executing = target_has_execution; Doug> and then augment the patch with whatever else is necessary Doug> to make it correct. Doug> [Assuming I understand correctly what the patch is trying to do.] I think what is happening is that we need to detect the transition from "not executing" to "executing a sync command". But perhaps we don't need to test sync_execution beforehand if we correctly detect execution. Doug> Also, is target_has_execution what you want here? Yeah, that is wrong. Tom