Re: [patch] STT_GNU_IFUNC support

[Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>]

On Wednesday 17 February 2010 17:33:38, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > > What about making this GNU-IFUNC inferior call scheduling follow the "step"
> > > policy?  Maybe the whole inferior calls should follow the "step" policy?
> > 
> > Or "on", should be the same.
> 
> Not so.  I find "step" to be the reasonable default (and it has been so for
> a long time before me in RHEL/Fedora) and I find GNU-IFUNC resolving with
> locked scheduler also as a reasonable default.  I do not find
> "scheduler-locking on" as a reasonable GDB default.
> 

Oh, of course not.  I was answering the first question,
about the specific infcall to resolve "strcmp" when the
user did "p strcmp" or "b strcmp".  I assume you meant to
sched-lock that call, which would be the same as "on",
but maybe I misunderstood what you meant.  A reply to
the second question would be similar to
the "That's another story." reply.  ;-)

-- 
Pedro Alves