Re: [RFC] stept, nextt, finisht, untilt, continuet

[pfee at talk21 dot com]

> > I like the  'step' mode of scheduler-locking, but often wish it applied to 
>the 
>

> >  "next" command, not just step.
> 
> I agree, it does not apply to the  continue-over-call part of `next'.  But 
that
> is a bug which should be  fixed.
> 
> 
> > My suggestion would be to create a "set scheduler-locking  next" mode in 
>which 
>
> > both "step" and "next" operate with other threads  locked out.
> 
> Do you think the "step" mode would be still useful if "next"  exists?

To be honest, I would always use "set scheduler-locking next" if it existed and 
would never use "step" locking mode.

My suggestion was influenced by a desire to minimise the code changes.  It would 
be better for me if "set scheduler-locking step" was replaced with "set 
scheduler-locking  next" though I haven't investigated how easy that would be to 
implement.

Another point, regarding "continue".  In non-stop mode, there's a "-a" flag to 
continue all threads.  Would it be worth using the same flag when in 
scheduler-locking mode to cause the entire process to resume?

Thanks,
Paul