This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH v2] Improved ^c support for gdb/guile
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: ludo at gnu dot org (Ludovic CourtÃs)
- Cc: xdje42 at gmail dot com, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, guile-devel at gnu dot org
- Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:01:48 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Improved ^c support for gdb/guile
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <wrbvbwejihe dot fsf at sspiff dot org> <wrbr471jxjg dot fsf at sspiff dot org> <834n3x8o7m dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CAP9bCMSE+vNpG2nJNKNQk3QfQHV=cqRdEGmv7T3eEcgQ0cTyFQ at mail dot gmail dot com> <83y519788a dot fsf at gnu dot org> <CAP9bCMQiZurfMyU-qA9LEy_6_BOyRE1-dke93_m505EHuNZrAA at mail dot gmail dot com> <871tz0d5vc dot fsf at gnu dot org>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic CourtÃs)
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, guile-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:20:39 +0100
>
> Doug Evans <xdje42@gmail.com> skribis:
>
> I donât remember, Eli: do you have patches pending review for these
> issues and other MinGW issues in Guile?
I don't know, you tell me. I sent several changesets in June,
in these messages:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-06/msg00031.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-06/msg00032.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-06/msg00033.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-06/msg00036.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-06/msg00037.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-06/msg00039.html
In this message:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-06/msg00057.html
you have requested a copyright assignment for applying my patches;
that paperwork was done long ago, so the changes can be admitted. I
don't know if they were, though. One thing I do know is that the
request to gnulib maintainers to include hstrerror, which I posted, at
your request, here
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2013-06/msg00042.html
was left without any followups.
Also, since the only way I could get a functional MinGW Guile was to
configure it without threads, I would suggest that this be the default
for MinGW, but that isn't a big deal.
> The non-pthread code is used when Guile is built without pthread
> support. In that case, the async is queued directly from the signal
> handler.
So why cannot this code be used by GDB?
> (I think we should aim to get rid of the signal-delivery thread
> eventually, and I remember Mark mentioned it before too.)
Right, which raises again the question why use in GDB something that
is slated for deletion.
Btw, where does the value of SCM_USE_PTHREAD_THREADS come from? Is it
something defined by the installed Guile headers?