[RFA] Make continuations per-thread.

[Daniel Jacobowitz]

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