From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8474 invoked by alias); 6 Sep 2007 10:01:20 -0000 Received: (qmail 8464 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Sep 2007 10:01:20 -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, 06 Sep 2007 10:01:10 +0000 Received: from kahikatea.snap.net.nz (174.60.255.123.dynamic.snap.net.nz [123.255.60.174]) by viper.snap.net.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD2083D9FE5; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 22:01:06 +1200 (NZST) Received: by kahikatea.snap.net.nz (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 578F88FC6D; Thu, 6 Sep 2007 22:00:35 +1200 (NZST) From: Nick Roberts MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <18143.53182.131267.53024@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2007 11:39:00 -0000 To: Mark Kettenis Cc: Cenedese@indel.ch, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MI: "^running" issues In-Reply-To: <200709060812.l868ChcE001895@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> References: <200709041653.22357.ghost@cs.msu.su> <5.2.0.9.1.20070906085944.01d61e20@localhost> <200709060812.l868ChcE001895@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> X-Mailer: VM 7.19 under Emacs 23.0.50.4 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-09/txt/msg00048.txt.bz2 > > There may be other cases I can't remember now. But I'd surely > > welcome a multithreaded gdb. gdb is needed for many cases, not > > just a local program on a linux box. > > Nothing that you can't solve with non-blocking IO. > > Debugging multi-threaded code is bad enough in itself. You don't need > to make matters worse by making gdb itself less deterministic. Perhaps Fabian is assuming that asynchronus operation requires a multithreaded gdb. The async branch that I created was multi-threaded but the patch that I currently have (under Daniel's guidance) and which I've previously posted to the gdb-patches mailing list: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2006-11/msg00225.html and briefly described in: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2007-06/msg00315.html is not. -- Nick http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob