From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24351 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2008 22:14:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 24342 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Dec 2008 22:14:14 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:13:38 +0000 Received: (qmail 26842 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2008 22:13:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 4 Dec 2008 22:13:36 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Doug Evans Subject: Re: call_function_by_hand doesn't restore target async? Date: Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:14:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: gdb@sourceware.org References: <20081204201837.29DF91C7A10@localhost> <200812042123.16654.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200812042214.23358.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2008-12/txt/msg00012.txt.bz2 On Thursday 04 December 2008 21:36:31, Doug Evans wrote: > On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > > In practice, and > > especially with non-stop mode, making infcalls async is ranging somewhere > > from hard to impossible. > > If that's the general consensus, at least for now, would there be any Dunno if that's the consensus; I'd really love it if someone proved me wrong. > objection to submitting a patch that has call_function_by_hand invoke > proceed() in a TRY_CATCH? After cleaning things up it could rethrow. I don't object in principle, but I'm no foreteller either. :-) -- Pedro Alves