From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8348 invoked by alias); 31 Aug 2006 23:33:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 8340 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Aug 2006 23:33:38 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from viper.snap.net.nz (HELO viper.snap.net.nz) (202.37.101.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:33:31 +0000 Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (p202-124-124-61.snap.net.nz [202.124.124.61]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8522D7B7CEE; Fri, 1 Sep 2006 11:33:27 +1200 (NZST) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 500) id 815D4BE446; Fri, 1 Sep 2006 11:31:16 +1200 (NZST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <17655.28994.979830.876998@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2006 23:33:00 -0000 To: Michael Snyder Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Mark Kettenis , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Merge of nickrob-async-20060513 to mainline? In-Reply-To: <1157064793.4466.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <17652.63229.637451.185345@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20060830023335.GA6377@nevyn.them.org> <17653.930.196634.143646@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <200608312102.k7VL2TAe017778@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <17655.22749.599881.560771@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <20060831222942.GA19065@nevyn.them.org> <17655.25836.313498.847320@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <1157064793.4466.52.camel@localhost.localdomain> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 22.0.50.8 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-08/txt/msg00296.txt.bz2 > > It's their choice to make GDB multi-threaded. I'm just saying it's an > > example of where it seems to work in practice. > > Nick, what you're up against is that this is an old discussion. > We've tossed around the idea of making gdb a multi-threaded app > for years, and for various reasons, we've decided against it. If it's an old discussion, it was presumably before NPTL, when LinuxThreads was used. > Therefore there is some inertia involved here, and you're not > gonna sell the idea casually. I'm not trying to sell the idea of threads (I wouldn't know how to) but the idea of an asynchronous event loop (which might involve the use of a single extra thread). > I suspect that some of us are reluctant to jump into the > discussion anew, with someone who doesn't have all of the > history and context. Sure, I think the focus of my original message has somehow shifted anyway. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob