From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14858 invoked by alias); 9 May 2007 19:14:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 14850 invoked by uid 22791); 9 May 2007 19:14:23 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from igw3.br.ibm.com (HELO igw3.br.ibm.com) (32.104.18.26) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 09 May 2007 19:14:21 +0000 Received: from mailhub3.br.ibm.com (unknown [9.18.232.110]) by igw3.br.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A083390266 for ; Wed, 9 May 2007 16:05:59 -0300 (BRT) Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (d24av02.br.ibm.com [9.18.232.47]) by mailhub3.br.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v8.3) with ESMTP id l49JE34w434364 for ; Wed, 9 May 2007 16:14:03 -0300 Received: from d24av02.br.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id l49JCvja003802 for ; Wed, 9 May 2007 16:12:57 -0300 Received: from dyn531804.br.ibm.com (dyn531804.br.ibm.com [9.18.238.71]) by d24av02.br.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id l49JCvKc003799; Wed, 9 May 2007 16:12:57 -0300 Subject: Re: [RFC] "single step" atomic instruction sequences as a whole on PPC From: Luis Machado Reply-To: luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com To: Jan Kratochvil Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20070509183319.GA29991@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> References: <200705091433.l49EXOfG024847@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <1178733926.4754.1.camel@localhost> <20070509181206.GA6543@caradoc.them.org> <1178734875.4754.6.camel@localhost> <20070509183319.GA29991@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 09 May 2007 19:14:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1178738042.4754.9.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-05/txt/msg00141.txt.bz2 > Hi Luis, > > please check the attached two testcases and run them at least 100x etc. > > Unfortunately the threaded one fails for me in some 7% of cases IMO due to > a race at the `infrun.c' line: > remove_status = remove_breakpoints (); > > The whole idea of running all the threads of the program to step over the > atomic sequence is problematic as the other threads may hit the inserted > breakpoint. While this cases is handled it contains a race. > > One way would be to use some temporary: > if (scheduler_mode == schedlock_off) > scheduler_mode = schedlock_step; > > But I believe one could use the PPC simulation code instead of the whole > breakpoint/resume way? > > > Regards, > Jan You had a fix for reducing the failures from 99% to 93%, right? Is this available on HEAD? Regards, Luis