From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15011 invoked by alias); 20 Apr 2011 21:12:43 -0000 Received: (qmail 15003 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Apr 2011 21:12:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:12:28 +0000 Received: (qmail 22516 invoked from network); 20 Apr 2011 21:12:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 20 Apr 2011 21:12:27 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Does multi-exec make sense without target-async? Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 21:12:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35-28-generic; KDE/4.6.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Tom Tromey , Marc Khouzam References: In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201104202212.26599.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: 2011-04/txt/msg00128.txt.bz2 On Wednesday 20 April 2011 21:13:05, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Marc" == Marc Khouzam writes: > > Marc> I originally thought of using 'continue -a' > Marc> to resume all inferiors, but the -a flag > Marc> is only for non-stop it seems. > > IIRC, when I was recently playing with multi-inferior, I could not get > "continue -a" to resume all inferiors. Is this supposed to work? In non-stop, yes. (In all-stop, the flag is rejected.) > (It might have been the case that this was prevented from working by > some other bug...) could be... -- Pedro Alves