From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel,gmane.comp.gdb.patches Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Improved ^c support for gdb/guile Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:01:48 +0200 Message-ID: <83iosc76kz.fsf@gnu.org> References: <834n3x8o7m.fsf@gnu.org> <83y519788a.fsf@gnu.org> <871tz0d5vc.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1392739311 24122 80.91.229.3 (18 Feb 2014 16:01:51 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 16:01:51 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Feb 18 17:02:00 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WFn7M-0004iM-UE for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 17:01:57 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:50364 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WFn7M-0008Lq-G6 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:01:56 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60691) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WFn7D-0008KZ-CO for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:01:52 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WFn78-0002ML-70 for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:01:47 -0500 Original-Received: from mtaout29.012.net.il ([80.179.55.185]:39357) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WFn77-0002Lu-Py; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 11:01:42 -0500 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout29.012.net.il by mtaout29.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0N17009008E79700@mtaout29.012.net.il>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:04:09 +0200 (IST) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by mtaout29.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0N170045X8MX5E60@mtaout29.012.net.il>; Tue, 18 Feb 2014 18:04:09 +0200 (IST) In-reply-to: <871tz0d5vc.fsf@gnu.org> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 80.179.55.185 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:16880 gmane.comp.gdb.patches:95470 Archived-At: > From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, guile= -devel@gnu.org > Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 12:20:39 +0100 >=20 > Doug Evans skribis: >=20 > I don=E2=80=99t remember, Eli: do you have patches pending review f= or 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, a= t 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 defaul= t 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 signa= l > 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 i= t something defined by the installed Guile headers?