This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] let record_resume fail immediately on error
- From: Joel Brobecker <brobecker at adacore dot com>
- To: Hui Zhu <teawater at gmail dot com>
- Cc: Michael Snyder <msnyder at vmware dot com>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:10:07 -0700
- Subject: Re: [RFA] let record_resume fail immediately on error
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <4AA68C92.email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <4ABE5E8D.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <20090928160728.GB9003@adacore.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20090929212910.GG6362@adacore.com> <email@example.com>
It looks like you might be waiting for input from someone, or for
approval? I confess that I'm still completely confused as to what
the problem is and how you're resolving it. I don't want to be
the one slowing you down, so if Michael is happy, I'm happy. But
if you'd like me to take a look, can you try to explain the issue
in a different way?
For instance, I asked:
> In other words: If an error occurs during recording, somehow
> the inferior "runs away", meaning runs until completion?
> Do we lose the process record?
I was mentioning this as being the current behavior, which
presumably is wrong. Am I correct?
I also asked:
> Based on the transcript of the session *with* the patch you propose,
> it looks like GDB is now just stuck on that instruction that it does
> not know how to record. Is that really progress?
I am now refering to the situation *AFTER* your patch is applied.
I couldn't understand the answer to sent or how it was relevant to