From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9322 invoked by alias); 14 Sep 2010 16:10:26 -0000 Mailing-List: contact archer-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Sender: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Received: (qmail 9310 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Sep 2010 16:10:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 16:10:00 -0000 From: Oleg Nesterov To: Roland McGrath Cc: Kevin Buettner , archer@sourceware.org Subject: Re: gdbstub initial code, v9 Message-ID: <20100914160700.GA20290@redhat.com> References: <20100908191838.GA27120@redhat.com> <20100909152937.GA21586@redhat.com> <20100912225350.6d5ccc12@mesquite.lan> <20100914022003.6989A403E6@magilla.sf.frob.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100914022003.6989A403E6@magilla.sf.frob.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-SW-Source: 2010-q3/txt/msg00188.txt.bz2 On 09/13, Roland McGrath wrote: > > > Could someone explain to me why non-stop (rather than all-stop) is > > being focused upon first? > > We've tried to encourage Oleg to do whatever is easiest first. > It's not clear to me why all-stop isn't what's easiest, all in all. Hmm. I thought that all-stop is more simple, and the very first version worked in this mode. I guess, I misunderstood the subsequent discussion as if non-stop is more important or preferred (I do not know how people use gdb). That is why I switched to non-stop. So, in the long term, which mode is more useful? And, I suppose that (unfortunately ;) ugdb should support both ? Oleg.