From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 110201 invoked by alias); 5 Mar 2019 19:46:51 -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 110192 invoked by uid 89); 5 Mar 2019 19:46:51 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=spotting X-HELO: mail-wm1-f65.google.com Received: from mail-wm1-f65.google.com (HELO mail-wm1-f65.google.com) (209.85.128.65) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 05 Mar 2019 19:46:50 +0000 Received: by mail-wm1-f65.google.com with SMTP id e74so3728013wmg.3 for ; Tue, 05 Mar 2019 11:46:49 -0800 (PST) Return-Path: Received: from ?IPv6:2001:8a0:f913:f700:4c97:6d52:2cea:997b? ([2001:8a0:f913:f700:4c97:6d52:2cea:997b]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o8sm797494wma.1.2019.03.05.11.46.46 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 05 Mar 2019 11:46:47 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] Make "checkpoint" not rely on inferior_ptid To: Tom Tromey References: <20190305184340.26768-1-palves@redhat.com> <20190305184340.26768-2-palves@redhat.com> <87lg1truav.fsf@tromey.com> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: Date: Tue, 05 Mar 2019 19:46:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <87lg1truav.fsf@tromey.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2019-03/txt/msg00070.txt.bz2 On 03/05/2019 07:32 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: > > Pedro> In the > Pedro> multi-target branch, I'm forcing inferior_ptid to null_ptid early in > Pedro> infrun event handling to make sure we inadvertently rely on the > Pedro> current thread/target when we shouldn't, and that caught some bad > Pedro> or unnecessary assumptions throughout. > > This read a bit strangely to me. Maybe instead write "to make sure we > don't inadvertently rely on the current thread/target,..."? > Oh, yes, I missed typing the "don't". Thanks for spotting that. > The patch itself seemed fine to me. Big +1 to reducing the impact of > globals. Thanks, Pedro Alves