From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24108 invoked by alias); 6 Feb 2009 02:30:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 24094 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Feb 2009 02:30:14 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:30:09 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1164810D1E; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 02:30:07 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE98E10D1A; Fri, 6 Feb 2009 02:30:06 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LVGTl-0004MV-Ng; Thu, 05 Feb 2009 21:30:05 -0500 Date: Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:30:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Marc Khouzam Cc: Vladimir Prus , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Re: MI *stopped versus silent breakpoint Message-ID: <20090206023005.GA16751@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Marc Khouzam , Vladimir Prus , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA06CB0F19@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA04E1BF53@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <200902051225.41426.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA04E1BF6C@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> <20090205224242.GA1306@caradoc.them.org> <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA04E1BF6E@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA04E1BF6E@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2009-02/txt/msg00055.txt.bz2 On Thu, Feb 05, 2009 at 06:24:41PM -0500, Marc Khouzam wrote: > In the scenario you mention, having a proper *stopped event for > silent bp would pretty much be unnoticed by the user thanks to the > *running event that immediately follows (the frontend would stop and > resume right away.) Same situation for the reverse-finish situation. Is any FE likely to get upset that threads resume without its "permission"? You'd probably see the *stopped, try to get a stack frame, and then get a *running instead... -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery