Re: Inadvertently run inferior threads

[Doug Evans <dje@google.com>]

On Mon, Jun 15, 2015 at 10:42 AM, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
>...
> With asynchronous control and background execution, you have to consider
> what happens if the user does "info threads" just while GDB is handling
> these internal stops.  If the user does "step&" (step in the background,
> and give me the prompt right away), and then does "info threads" while the
> thread is busy doing the internal single-steps, it'd be highly
> confusing to sometimes see the thread as stopped (e.g., if it needed to
> be held a bit while another thread steps over a breakpoint) and sometimes
> as running.

I dunno if it'd be confusing.
Maybe we could give up on trying to cover up the stopped/running state
of the thread and just let info threads report something closer to
what's actually going on?
An asterisk or some such accompanying the output of threads in
intermediate states may be a sufficient clue to the the user.