[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v2] Improved ^c support for gdb/guile

From: Eli Zaretskii
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Improved ^c support for gdb/guile
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:01:48 +0200

> From: address@hidden (Ludovic Courtès)
> Cc: Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden>, address@hidden, address@hidden
> Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:20:39 +0100
> Doug Evans <address@hidden> skribis:
> I don’t remember, Eli: do you have patches pending review for these
> issues and other MinGW issues in Guile?

I don't know, you tell me.  I sent several changesets in June,
in these messages:

In this message:

you have requested a copyright assignment for applying my patches;
that paperwork was done long ago, so the changes can be admitted.  I
don't know if they were, though.  One thing I do know is that the
request to gnulib maintainers to include hstrerror, which I posted, at
your request, here

was left without any followups.

Also, since the only way I could get a functional MinGW Guile was to
configure it without threads, I would suggest that this be the default
for MinGW, but that isn't a big deal.

> The non-pthread code is used when Guile is built without pthread
> support.  In that case, the async is queued directly from the signal
> handler.

So why cannot this code be used by GDB?

> (I think we should aim to get rid of the signal-delivery thread
> eventually, and I remember Mark mentioned it before too.)

Right, which raises again the question why use in GDB something that
is slated for deletion.

Btw, where does the value of SCM_USE_PTHREAD_THREADS come from?  Is it
something defined by the installed Guile headers?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]