From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9267 invoked by alias); 17 Apr 2008 00:25:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 9259 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Apr 2008 00:25:57 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 17 Apr 2008 00:25:40 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m3H0Lb9M003250; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:21:37 -0400 Received: from pobox.corp.redhat.com (pobox.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.20]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m3H0LbRu018212; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:21:37 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-248-155.boston.redhat.com [10.13.248.155]) by pobox.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id m3H0LaSc022841; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 20:21:37 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id B9A9F508245; Wed, 16 Apr 2008 18:21:35 -0600 (MDT) To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Using bt command in async mode References: <18417.38670.195071.81191@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20080410142029.GB21662@caradoc.them.org> <200804101636.23799.pedro@codesourcery.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: Tom Tromey X-Attribution: Tom Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2008 02:58:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200804101636.23799.pedro@codesourcery.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Thu\, 10 Apr 2008 16\:36\:23 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2008-04/txt/msg00322.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: >> Is there some other approach you'd prefer? Pedro> The approach I though of following would be to Pedro> do it explicitly in each command, given that we Pedro> may have commands that may apply to another thread Pedro> not the current one in non-stop mode, prohibiting those Pedro> commands early may be wrong. Pedro> Something similar to ERROR_NO_INFERIOR. Pedro> I'm not sure we're settled on --thread or not, so Pedro> I didn't come forward with this. I think this can still work with the patch I'm committing. A command that is ok for async could dynamically decide that it is not ok and throw an error. Tom