From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-44423-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 82126 invoked by alias); 15 Jun 2015 15:15:47 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 82116 invoked by uid 89); 15 Jun 2015 15:15:46 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_40,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.2
X-HELO: mtaout26.012.net.il
Received: from mtaout26.012.net.il (HELO mtaout26.012.net.il) (80.179.55.182) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 15:15:45 +0000
Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout26.012.net.il by mtaout26.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NPZ00100ROZR100@mtaout26.012.net.il> for gdb@sourceware.org; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 18:17:59 +0300 (IDT)
Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout26.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NPZ00MMGRTZOU50@mtaout26.012.net.il>; Mon, 15 Jun 2015 18:17:59 +0300 (IDT)
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 15:15:00 -0000
From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Subject: Re: Inadvertently run inferior threads
In-reply-to: <557ECE2D.1000707@redhat.com>
To: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb@sourceware.org
Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>
Message-id: <83twu9ngtw.fsf@gnu.org>
References: <83h9tq3zu3.fsf@gnu.org> <55043A63.6020103@redhat.com> <8361a339xd.fsf@gnu.org> <83616vtx40.fsf@gnu.org> <557ECE2D.1000707@redhat.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
X-SW-Source: 2015-06/txt/msg00028.txt.bz2

> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 14:07:57 +0100
> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
> CC: gdb@sourceware.org
> 
> > It seems like 'interrupt' does nothing in native debugging of a target
> > that doesn't support async execution, at least on MS-Windows.  Is that
> > a bug, or is it expected?
> 
> It's old code, but I think the idea of the target_can_async check
> in interrupt_command is "this shouldn't even be possible".  If the
> target doesn't support async execution, you're not supposed to
> be able to end up with a prompt while the target is running
> in the first place.

IOW, we don't have even a fire escape when something like that
happens.  Would it be a good idea to have at least a maint command to
stop a thread, or all threads?