From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Jim Blandy <jimb@zwingli.cygnus.com>
To: Daniel Berlin <dan@cgsoftware.com>
Cc: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>, Todd Whitesel <toddpw@windriver.com>, Jim Ingham <jingham@apple.com>, gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com, "Insight (GDB GUI)" <insight@sourceware.cygnus.com>
Subject: Re: non-blocking reads/writes and event loops
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 2000 10:20:00 -0000
Message-id: <np1z1sfevh.fsf@zwingli.cygnus.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10006182227270.24967-100000@propylaea.anduin.com>
X-SW-Source: 2000-q2/msg00290.html

> The question about whether we *should* use threads is a different
> one altogether.  The real question splits into "Are there parts of
> gdb where we could be doing processing that isn't dependent on other
> processing, and we therefore are possibly wasting time on MP systems
> by not having each done in a thread" and "Are there parts of GDB
> where we could simplify code flow by using threads".

Srikanth at HP has mentioned the idea of doing symbol table reads in
the background.  I thought that sounded pretty cool.