From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1481 invoked by alias); 8 Nov 2011 15:45:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 1473 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Nov 2011 15:44:59 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 15:44:45 +0000 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1RNnqu-0006LE-Ro from pedro_alves@mentor.com ; Tue, 08 Nov 2011 07:44:45 -0800 Received: from scottsdale.localnet ([172.16.63.104]) by EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 8 Nov 2011 15:44:41 +0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Tom Tromey Subject: Re: Toward multicore GDB - Set theory Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 15:45:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/2.6.38-12-generic; KDE/4.7.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, Matt Rice , Stan Shebs References: <4EB088E7.8040107@earthlink.net> <201111081450.30461.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201111081544.40334.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-11/txt/msg00065.txt.bz2 On Tuesday 08 November 2011 15:03:33, Tom Tromey wrote: > I think this is going to interact with my ambiguous breakpoint / > linespec changes. At various points in the new code, linespec iterates > over program spaces; this should be filtered according to the trigger > set. I am wondering whether you are basing your work on this patch set, I'm currently working against current pristine mainline. > and if not, how we can best manage the changes. I would rather not be > in a race to finish, but instead talk about how we can best cooperate. My changes aren't as near complete as yours, so I don't think there's much chance for me to win such a race. :-) But note I haven't done anything like making: [2.*:3.*] break main look for `main' in inferiors 2 and 3, and I don't plan to. I'm leaving the symbol search side out, as we'll get most of that from your changes, with some kind of extra filtering. There's a bunch left to try/do that doesn't touch linespec / symbol filtering. So I have absolutely no problem with seeing your changes go in, and picking them up that way. If I get further enough in progress before your patch lands, I'll rebase on top of it. I'll try to post the WIP code somewhere soon, so you (all) can take a look. -- Pedro Alves