This is the mail archive of the gdb@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: call_function_by_hand doesn't restore target async?

From: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
To: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
Cc: gdb at sourceware dot org
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 22:14:23 +0000
Subject: Re: call_function_by_hand doesn't restore target async?
References: <20081204201837.29DF91C7A10@localhost> <200812042123.16654.pedro@codesourcery.com> <e394668d0812041336w4a76a857g116e1eeb9bd020de@mail.gmail.com>

On Thursday 04 December 2008 21:36:31, Doug Evans wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 1:23 PM, Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> > In practice, and
> > especially with non-stop mode, making infcalls async is ranging somewhere
> > from hard to impossible.
> 
> If that's the general consensus, at least for now, would there be any

Dunno if that's the consensus; I'd really love it if someone proved me wrong.

> objection to submitting a patch that has call_function_by_hand invoke
> proceed() in a TRY_CATCH?  After cleaning things up it could rethrow.

I don't object in principle, but I'm no foreteller either.  :-)

-- 
Pedro Alves

References:
- call_function_by_hand doesn't restore target async?
  - From: Doug Evans
- Re: call_function_by_hand doesn't restore target async?
  - From: Pedro Alves
- Re: call_function_by_hand doesn't restore target async?
  - From: Doug Evans

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