On Nov 5, 3:28pm, Andrew Cagney wrote:
There have now been several discussion threads that lead to the
conclusion that
target->resume (ptid_t, int, enum target_signal)
needs changing. At present the suggestion is to add a parameter to
indicate schedule locking and similar operations.
I'd like to propose a different approach. Instead of passing to
resume() what to do, have resume() iterate over all the threads asking
each what it should do - suspend, step, run, signal, ...
Sounds reasonable. (In fact, it seems a whole lot more workable than
the other approach.)
Yep, figure out the worst case and solve that - then discover that the
solution is better than the other partial approaches :-)