From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11071 invoked by alias); 11 Jul 2002 23:53:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 11057 invoked from network); 11 Jul 2002 23:53:41 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.83.203) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Jul 2002 23:53:41 -0000 Received: from makita.cygnus.com (makita.sfbay.redhat.com [192.168.30.83]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id QAA15637; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 16:53:40 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (keiths@localhost) by makita.cygnus.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.6.4) with ESMTP id QAA29757; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 16:53:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Authentication-Warning: makita.cygnus.com: keiths owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 17:28:00 -0000 From: Keith Seitz X-X-Sender: To: Grant Edwards cc: , Subject: Re: RDI code busy-waiting on running target? In-Reply-To: <20020711184343.A4472@visi.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00258.txt.bz2 On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Grant Edwards wrote: > Here's a patch that fixes it. I only added the usleep() when > there's no ui_loop_hook to call. Is that the right thing to > do, or will Insight et al still suck CPU time? I'm not sure > who's supposed to be surrendering the CPU, the UI or the > target. Insight would definitely shoot to 100% CPU, too. This often a problem with have gdb non-event based w.r.t. the target. I would recommend doing the sleep for the ui_loop_hook, too. Keith