Re: [PATCH 3/9 v7] Introduce target_{stop,continue}_ptid

[Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>]

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 09/17/2014 07:20 PM, Doug Evans wrote:
>
>>>> I thought about target_resume.  It was an semi-interesting case
>>>> that immediately popped into my head at the time.
>>>> And then I tried to think how the typical reader would interpret it.
>>>> I'm not a typical reader, but I think(!) people would expect it to be
>>>> asynchronous in the sense that the inferior is resumed and
>>>> control returns to gdb.  IOW target_resume doesn't also wait
>>>> for the inferior to stop after it has been resumed.
>>>> Therefore I see no need to rename it (say to target_resume_no_wait).
>
> OK.  I was reading it like "a convention where all async functions
> ended with _async or _no_wait" would be applied throughout.  I could
> see instead that restricted to cases where we have two variants -- I
> guess that's where my understanding was.

I did write "... that is otherwise ambiguous".
ref: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2014-09/msg00440.html