From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9485 invoked by alias); 8 Jul 2008 05:29:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 9475 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jul 2008 05:29:48 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Jul 2008 05:29:31 +0000 Received: (qmail 8087 invoked from network); 8 Jul 2008 05:29:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO wind.local) (vladimir@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 8 Jul 2008 05:29:29 -0000 From: Vladimir Prus To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: MI threads behaviour Date: Tue, 08 Jul 2008 05:29:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <200806181601.52404.vladimir@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200806181601.52404.vladimir@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200807080929.14497.vladimir@codesourcery.com> 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: 2008-07/txt/msg00050.txt.bz2 On Wednesday 18 June 2008 16:01:52 you wrote: > > Here's the promised document about how I'd like threads to work in MI. It's not > fully implemented at this point, but I'd like to have some discussion before we > go on further. Anybody sees anything wrong or suboptimal about this proprosed > behaviour? Anybody is still planning to have some comments? If not, the described behaviour will be implemented as soon as non-stop patches are in, and I'll work on converting the posted text into docs. - Volodya