This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [RFA] Make continuations per-thread.

From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>
To: Vladimir Prus <vladimir at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 09:43:25 -0400
Subject: Re: [RFA] Make continuations per-thread.
References: <200804242045.39246.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200805021234.12472.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20080502132337.GA29202@caradoc.them.org> <200805021730.33831.vladimir@codesourcery.com>

On Fri, May 02, 2008 at 05:30:32PM +0400, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> I think the sensible behaviour is the same as for "next" -- abort
> whatever the operation we were doing. This means that we have to wipe
> continuation inside 'proceed'. I can adjust the patch this way, but
> does it make sense to you?

It makes sense, but I'm wondering how much work it would be to do
better than that (for all-stop, I mean - clearly you're planning to
do better for non-stop).  In the example in my last message, there's
a point where thread 1 is stopped in the middle of a finish.  Info
threads could show "(finishing)".  Should step / next clear that,
or should we be able to step a bit and then print the return value
when we get there?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFA] Make continuations per-thread.
  - From: Ulrich Weigand

References:
- Re: [RFA] Make continuations per-thread.
  - From: Pedro Alves
- Re: [RFA] Make continuations per-thread.
  - From: Daniel Jacobowitz
- Re: [RFA] Make continuations per-thread.
  - From: Vladimir Prus

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]