Re: PATCH: client side SuspendThread() handling when using valgrind

[Dimitrie O. Paun]

On April 7, 2003 10:41 am, Adam Gundy wrote:
> the attached patch is a reworking of the previous valgrind patch's
> SuspendThread() changes so that the client only suspends threads locally
> when running under valgrind.

What about:

+#ifdef HAVE_VALGRIND_MEMCHECK_H
+#include <valgrind/memcheck.h>
+#else
+#define RUNNING_ON_VALGRIND 0
+#endif

so we can eliminate the ugly ifdefs?

-- 
Dimi.

PATCH: client side SuspendThread() handling when using valgrind

[Adam Gundy]

At 18:54 07/04/03 -0400, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
> On April 7, 2003 10:41 am, Adam Gundy wrote:
> > the attached patch is a reworking of the previous valgrind patch's
> > SuspendThread() changes so that the client only suspends threads locally
> > when running under valgrind.
>
> What about:
>
> +#ifdef HAVE_VALGRIND_MEMCHECK_H
> +#include <valgrind/memcheck.h>
> +#else
> +#define RUNNING_ON_VALGRIND 0
> +#endif
>
> so we can eliminate the ugly ifdefs?

yes, that's better. I was really just fishing with this patch to see if
Alexandre would accept this method of dealing with SuspendThread() under valgrind...


Seeya,
 Adam
--
Real Programmers don't comment their code. If it was hard to write,
it should be hard to read, and even harder to modify.
These are all my own opinions.