From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25272 invoked by alias); 22 Dec 2009 03:18:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 25264 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Dec 2009 03:18:51 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail-px0-f183.google.com (HELO mail-px0-f183.google.com) (209.85.216.183) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 03:18:45 +0000 Received: by pxi13 with SMTP id 13so153943pxi.24 for ; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:18:44 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.142.66.13 with SMTP id o13mr5335519wfa.307.1261451924146; Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:18:44 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <20091125162458.GF26004@adacore.com> From: Hui Zhu Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 03:18:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [RFA] let record_resume fail immediately on error To: tromey@redhat.com Cc: Joel Brobecker , Michael Snyder , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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: 2009-12/txt/msg00333.txt.bz2 Thanks a lot. Fixed and checked in. Hui On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 04:44, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> ">" =3D=3D Hui Zhu writes: > >>> 2009-12-02 =A0Hui Zhu =A0 >>> * record.c (record_message): Change argument. >>> (record_message_wrapper): New function. >>> (do_record_message): Change it name to >>> "record_message_wrapper_safe". >>> Let it call "record_message_wrapper". >>> (record_resume_error): Deleted. >>> (record_resume): Call "record_message". >>> (record_wait): Deleted record_resume_error. >>> Call "record_message_wrapper_safe". >>> Set status when do_record_message need stop the inferior. > > This is ok, thanks. > >>> +gdb_test "continue" "\[process \[0-9\]+ .*" "continue to sigall exit" \ > > Should this be "signal" and not "sigall"? > > Tom >