This is the mail archive of the gdb@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Does multi-exec make sense without target-async?

From: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
To: gdb at sourceware dot org
Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>, Marc Khouzam <marc dot khouzam at ericsson dot com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 22:12:26 +0100
Subject: Re: Does multi-exec make sense without target-async?
References: <F7CE05678329534C957159168FA70DEC577DBD1CCF@EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se> <m362q81y26.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>

On Wednesday 20 April 2011 21:13:05, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>>>> "Marc" == Marc Khouzam <marc.khouzam@ericsson.com> writes:
> 
> Marc> I originally thought of using 'continue -a'
> Marc> to resume all inferiors, but the -a flag
> Marc> is only for non-stop it seems.
> 
> IIRC, when I was recently playing with multi-inferior, I could not get
> "continue -a" to resume all inferiors.  Is this supposed to work?

In non-stop, yes.  (In all-stop, the flag is rejected.)

> (It might have been the case that this was prevented from working by
> some other bug...)

could be...

-- 
Pedro Alves

References:
- Does multi-exec make sense without target-async?
  - From: Marc Khouzam
- Re: Does multi-exec make sense without target-async?
  - From: Tom Tromey

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]