This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 3/9 v7] Introduce target_{stop,continue}_ptid
- From: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- To: Gary Benson <gbenson at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 11:34:37 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9 v7] Introduce target_{stop,continue}_ptid
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <21520 dot 36381 dot 756875 dot 963606 at ruffy2 dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <20140911102659 dot GA17472 at blade dot nx> <5412DEB5 dot 6020706 at redhat dot com> <21523 dot 9502 dot 168492 dot 803068 at ruffy2 dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <54132B55 dot 9000108 at redhat dot com> <21523 dot 12189 dot 134570 dot 770432 at ruffy2 dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <5413305B dot 6020402 at redhat dot com> <21523 dot 13993 dot 986533 dot 615240 at ruffy2 dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <54133939 dot 70801 at redhat dot com> <CADPb22RsGv_Do1SztOK4Bse99e5yL_hmnrOHCU8OhNGkFyxGDQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <20140915100736 dot GA13503 at blade dot nx> <CADPb22Qs-Xi7DV+8OV32ao8KUw6OB-8F3wbKB3+Fypd7Rjd64A at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 9:00 AM, Doug Evans <dje@google.com> wrote:
> [...]
> To advance the discussion,
> the async case is the subtle case IMO. Evidently (and I'm just going
> by what I see, there may be more data here) someone (*1) looked at the
> name "target_stop" and thought it was async (which is probably what
Bleah. s/async/synchronous/
> I'd do). The function comment doesn't specify. One could argue it's
> sufficient to just fix the function comment, but if we're going to
> have a mix of similar functions, some of which are async and some
> sync, then IMO we should also make the difference stand out in the
> code where it's read. I'd be happy with a convention where all async
> functions ended with _async or _no_wait (the latter reads better to
> me), but I'm guessing I'd be happy with a different convention as
> well.
>
> FAOD,
> there is a bug, but it's not one you specifically need to address.
> I pointed it out because it's a data point that contributes to the discussion.
>
> (*1): I've looked at git log and blame. I'm speaking generically here
> because I think this is unlikely to be a one-off kind of issue. Plus I
> can well imagine me making a similar mistake too. Plus the bug got
> through code review.
- References:
- Re: [PATCH 3/9 v7] Introduce target_{stop,continue}_ptid
- Re: [PATCH 3/9 v7] Introduce target_{stop,continue}_ptid
- Re: [PATCH 3/9 v7] Introduce target_{stop,continue}_ptid
- Re: [PATCH 3/9 v7] Introduce target_{stop,continue}_ptid
- Re: [PATCH 3/9 v7] Introduce target_{stop,continue}_ptid
- Re: [PATCH 3/9 v7] Introduce target_{stop,continue}_ptid
- Re: [PATCH 3/9 v7] Introduce target_{stop,continue}_ptid
- Re: [PATCH 3/9 v7] Introduce target_{stop,continue}_ptid
- Re: [PATCH 3/9 v7] Introduce target_{stop,continue}_ptid
- Re: [PATCH 3/9 v7] Introduce target_{stop,continue}_ptid
- Re: [PATCH 3/9 v7] Introduce target_{stop,continue}_ptid
- Re: [PATCH 3/9 v7] Introduce target_{stop,continue}_ptid