[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:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-06/msg00031.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-06/msg00032.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-06/msg00033.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-06/msg00036.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-06/msg00037.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-06/msg00039.html
In this message:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2013-06/msg00057.html
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
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnulib/2013-06/msg00042.html
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?
- Re: [PATCH v2] Improved ^c support for gdb/guile, Doug Evans, 2014/02/17
- Re: [PATCH v2] Improved ^c support for gdb/guile, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/02/17
- Re: [PATCH v2] Improved ^c support for gdb/guile, Doug Evans, 2014/02/17
- Re: [PATCH v2] Improved ^c support for gdb/guile, Ludovic Courtès, 2014/02/18
- Re: [PATCH v2] Improved ^c support for gdb/guile,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- Re: [PATCH v2] Improved ^c support for gdb/guile, Ludovic Courtès, 2014/02/18
- Re: [PATCH v2] Improved ^c support for gdb/guile, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/02/18
- Re: [PATCH v2] Improved ^c support for gdb/guile, Ludovic Courtès, 2014/02/18
- Re: [PATCH v2] Improved ^c support for gdb/guile, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/02/18
- Re: [PATCH v2] Improved ^c support for gdb/guile, Ludovic Courtès, 2014/02/18
- MinGW patches, Ludovic Courtès, 2014/02/18
- Re: MinGW patches, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/02/18
- [PATCH] Remove unneeded HAVE_POSIX conditionals, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/02/22
- Re: [PATCH] Remove unneeded HAVE_POSIX conditionals, Mark H Weaver, 2014/02/22
- Re: [PATCH] Remove unneeded HAVE_POSIX conditionals, Eli Zaretskii, 2014/02/22