From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: [PATCH v2 13/23] Factor out code to re-resume stepped thread
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 12:59:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1428410990-28560-14-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1428410990-28560-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com>
Just a code refactor, no funcionality change intended.
gdb/ChangeLog:
2015-04-07 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
* infrun.c (keep_going_stepped_thread): New function, factored out
from ...
(switch_back_to_stepped_thread): ... here.
---
gdb/infrun.c | 198 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------
1 file changed, 106 insertions(+), 92 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gdb/infrun.c b/gdb/infrun.c
index 87bbe03..f24e8d7 100644
--- a/gdb/infrun.c
+++ b/gdb/infrun.c
@@ -1879,6 +1879,7 @@ reset_ecs (struct execution_control_state *ecs, struct thread_info *tp)
static void keep_going_pass (struct execution_control_state *ecs);
static void prepare_to_wait (struct execution_control_state *ecs);
+static int keep_going_stepped_thread (struct thread_info *tp);
static int thread_still_needs_step_over (struct thread_info *tp);
/* Are there any pending step-over requests for INF? If so, run one
@@ -5753,110 +5754,123 @@ switch_back_to_stepped_thread (struct execution_control_state *ecs)
if (stepping_thread != NULL)
{
- struct frame_info *frame;
- struct gdbarch *gdbarch;
-
- tp = stepping_thread;
-
- /* If the stepping thread exited, then don't try to switch
- back and resume it, which could fail in several different
- ways depending on the target. Instead, just keep going.
-
- We can find a stepping dead thread in the thread list in
- two cases:
-
- - The target supports thread exit events, and when the
- target tries to delete the thread from the thread list,
- inferior_ptid pointed at the exiting thread. In such
- case, calling delete_thread does not really remove the
- thread from the list; instead, the thread is left listed,
- with 'exited' state.
-
- - The target's debug interface does not support thread
- exit events, and so we have no idea whatsoever if the
- previously stepping thread is still alive. For that
- reason, we need to synchronously query the target
- now. */
- if (is_exited (tp->ptid)
- || !target_thread_alive (tp->ptid))
- {
- if (debug_infrun)
- fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog,
- "infrun: not switching back to "
- "stepped thread, it has vanished\n");
-
- delete_thread (tp->ptid);
- return 0;
- }
-
if (debug_infrun)
fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog,
"infrun: switching back to stepped thread\n");
- reset_ecs (ecs, tp);
- switch_to_thread (tp->ptid);
+ if (keep_going_stepped_thread (stepping_thread))
+ {
+ prepare_to_wait (ecs);
+ return 1;
+ }
+ }
+ }
- stop_pc = regcache_read_pc (get_thread_regcache (tp->ptid));
- frame = get_current_frame ();
- gdbarch = get_frame_arch (frame);
+ return 0;
+}
- /* If the PC of the thread we were trying to single-step has
- changed, then that thread has trapped or been signaled,
- but the event has not been reported to GDB yet. Re-poll
- the target looking for this particular thread's event
- (i.e. temporarily enable schedlock) by:
+/* Set a previously stepped thread back to stepping. Returns true on
+ success, false if the resume is not possible (e.g., the thread
+ vanished). */
+
+static int
+keep_going_stepped_thread (struct thread_info *tp)
+{
+ struct frame_info *frame;
+ struct gdbarch *gdbarch;
+ struct execution_control_state ecss;
+ struct execution_control_state *ecs = &ecss;
- - setting a break at the current PC
- - resuming that particular thread, only (by setting
- trap expected)
+ /* If the stepping thread exited, then don't try to switch back and
+ resume it, which could fail in several different ways depending
+ on the target. Instead, just keep going.
- This prevents us continuously moving the single-step
- breakpoint forward, one instruction at a time,
- overstepping. */
+ We can find a stepping dead thread in the thread list in two
+ cases:
- if (stop_pc != tp->prev_pc)
- {
- ptid_t resume_ptid;
+ - The target supports thread exit events, and when the target
+ tries to delete the thread from the thread list, inferior_ptid
+ pointed at the exiting thread. In such case, calling
+ delete_thread does not really remove the thread from the list;
+ instead, the thread is left listed, with 'exited' state.
- if (debug_infrun)
- fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog,
- "infrun: expected thread advanced also "
- "(%s -> %s)\n",
- paddress (target_gdbarch (), tp->prev_pc),
- paddress (target_gdbarch (), stop_pc));
-
- /* Clear the info of the previous step-over, as it's no
- longer valid (if the thread was trying to step over a
- breakpoint, it has already succeeded). It's what
- keep_going would do too, if we called it. Do this
- before trying to insert the sss breakpoint, otherwise
- if we were previously trying to step over this exact
- address in another thread, the breakpoint is
- skipped. */
- clear_step_over_info ();
- tp->control.trap_expected = 0;
-
- insert_single_step_breakpoint (get_frame_arch (frame),
- get_frame_address_space (frame),
- stop_pc);
-
- resume_ptid = user_visible_resume_ptid (tp->control.stepping_command);
- do_target_resume (resume_ptid, 0, GDB_SIGNAL_0);
- prepare_to_wait (ecs);
- }
- else
- {
- if (debug_infrun)
- fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog,
- "infrun: expected thread still "
- "hasn't advanced\n");
- keep_going_pass (ecs);
- }
+ - The target's debug interface does not support thread exit
+ events, and so we have no idea whatsoever if the previously
+ stepping thread is still alive. For that reason, we need to
+ synchronously query the target now. */
- return 1;
- }
+ if (is_exited (tp->ptid)
+ || !target_thread_alive (tp->ptid))
+ {
+ if (debug_infrun)
+ fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog,
+ "infrun: not resuming previously "
+ "stepped thread, it has vanished\n");
+
+ delete_thread (tp->ptid);
+ return 0;
}
- return 0;
+
+ if (debug_infrun)
+ fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog,
+ "infrun: resuming previously stepped thread\n");
+
+ reset_ecs (ecs, tp);
+ switch_to_thread (tp->ptid);
+
+ stop_pc = regcache_read_pc (get_thread_regcache (tp->ptid));
+ frame = get_current_frame ();
+ gdbarch = get_frame_arch (frame);
+
+ /* If the PC of the thread we were trying to single-step has
+ changed, then that thread has trapped or been signaled, but the
+ event has not been reported to GDB yet. Re-poll the target
+ looking for this particular thread's event (i.e. temporarily
+ enable schedlock) by:
+
+ - setting a break at the current PC
+ - resuming that particular thread, only (by setting trap
+ expected)
+
+ This prevents us continuously moving the single-step breakpoint
+ forward, one instruction at a time, overstepping. */
+
+ if (stop_pc != tp->prev_pc)
+ {
+ ptid_t resume_ptid;
+
+ if (debug_infrun)
+ fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog,
+ "infrun: expected thread advanced also (%s -> %s)\n",
+ paddress (target_gdbarch (), tp->prev_pc),
+ paddress (target_gdbarch (), stop_pc));
+
+ /* Clear the info of the previous step-over, as it's no longer
+ valid (if the thread was trying to step over a breakpoint, it
+ has already succeeded). It's what keep_going would do too,
+ if we called it. Do this before trying to insert the sss
+ breakpoint, otherwise if we were previously trying to step
+ over this exact address in another thread, the breakpoint is
+ skipped. */
+ clear_step_over_info ();
+ tp->control.trap_expected = 0;
+
+ insert_single_step_breakpoint (get_frame_arch (frame),
+ get_frame_address_space (frame),
+ stop_pc);
+
+ resume_ptid = user_visible_resume_ptid (tp->control.stepping_command);
+ do_target_resume (resume_ptid, 0, GDB_SIGNAL_0);
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ if (debug_infrun)
+ fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog,
+ "infrun: expected thread still hasn't advanced\n");
+
+ keep_going_pass (ecs);
+ }
+ return 1;
}
/* Is thread TP in the middle of single-stepping? */
--
1.9.3
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-07 12:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 47+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-04-07 12:49 [PATCH v2 00/23] All-stop on top of non-stop Pedro Alves
2015-04-07 12:50 ` [PATCH v2 11/23] Use keep_going in proceed and start_step_over too Pedro Alves
2015-04-07 12:50 ` [PATCH v2 12/23] Misc switch_back_to_stepped_thread cleanups Pedro Alves
2015-04-07 12:50 ` [PATCH v2 04/23] Change adjust_pc_after_break's prototype Pedro Alves
2015-04-07 12:50 ` [PATCH v2 09/23] Make gdb.threads/step-over-trips-on-watchpoint.exp effective on !x86 Pedro Alves
2015-04-07 12:50 ` [PATCH v2 20/23] PPC64: symbol-file + exec-file results in broken displaced stepping Pedro Alves
2015-04-07 12:50 ` [PATCH v2 21/23] PPC64: Fix gdb.arch/ppc64-atomic-inst.exp with " Pedro Alves
2015-04-07 12:50 ` [PATCH v2 16/23] Fix signal-while-stepping-over-bp-other-thread.exp on targets always in non-stop Pedro Alves
2015-04-07 12:50 ` [PATCH v2 23/23] native Linux: enable always non-stop by default Pedro Alves
2015-04-07 12:50 ` [PATCH v2 03/23] PR13858 - Can't do displaced stepping with no symbols Pedro Alves
2015-04-09 12:46 ` Pedro Alves
2015-04-07 12:50 ` [PATCH v2 19/23] Disable displaced stepping if trying it fails Pedro Alves
2015-04-07 12:50 ` [PATCH v2 22/23] S/390: displaced stepping and PC-relative RIL-b/RIL-c instructions Pedro Alves
2015-04-07 12:50 ` [PATCH v2 01/23] Fix gdb.base/sigstep.exp with displaced stepping on software single-step targets Pedro Alves
2015-04-10 9:56 ` Pedro Alves
2015-04-07 12:50 ` [PATCH v2 05/23] remote.c/all-stop: Implement TARGET_WAITKIND_NO_RESUMED and TARGET_WNOHANG Pedro Alves
2015-04-07 12:50 ` [PATCH v2 02/23] Fix and test "checkpoint" in non-stop mode Pedro Alves
2015-04-07 12:50 ` [PATCH v2 10/23] PPC64: Fix step-over-trips-on-watchpoint.exp with displaced stepping on Pedro Alves
2015-04-07 12:50 ` [PATCH v2 15/23] Implement all-stop on top of a target running non-stop mode Pedro Alves
2015-04-07 13:36 ` Eli Zaretskii
2015-04-08 9:34 ` Yao Qi
2015-04-08 9:53 ` Pedro Alves
2015-04-08 11:08 ` Pedro Alves
2015-04-08 19:35 ` Pedro Alves
2015-04-08 19:41 ` Pedro Alves
2015-04-07 12:55 ` [PATCH v2 17/23] Fix interrupt-noterm.exp on targets always in non-stop Pedro Alves
2015-04-07 12:57 ` [PATCH v2 08/23] Test step-over-{lands-on-breakpoint|trips-on-watchpoint}.exp with displaced stepping Pedro Alves
2015-04-10 14:54 ` Pedro Alves
2015-04-07 12:59 ` [PATCH v2 14/23] Teach non-stop to do in-line step-overs (stop all, step, restart) Pedro Alves
2015-04-07 12:59 ` [PATCH v2 07/23] Embed the pending step-over chain in thread_info objects Pedro Alves
2015-04-07 12:59 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2015-04-07 13:30 ` [PATCH v2 18/23] Fix step-over-{trips-on-watchpoint|lands-on-breakpoint}.exp race Pedro Alves
2015-04-07 13:30 ` [PATCH v2 06/23] Make thread_still_needs_step_over consider stepping_over_watchpoint too Pedro Alves
2015-04-08 9:28 ` Yao Qi
2015-04-13 10:47 ` Pedro Alves
2015-04-08 9:45 ` [PATCH v2 00/23] All-stop on top of non-stop Yao Qi
2015-04-08 10:17 ` Pedro Alves
2015-04-08 10:30 ` Pedro Alves
2015-04-10 8:41 ` Yao Qi
2015-04-10 8:50 ` Pedro Alves
2015-04-10 8:22 ` Yao Qi
2015-04-10 8:34 ` Pedro Alves
2015-04-10 9:26 ` Yao Qi
2015-04-13 15:28 ` Pedro Alves
2015-04-13 16:16 ` Yao Qi
2015-04-13 16:23 ` Pedro Alves
2015-04-13 16:23 ` Pedro Alves
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1428410990-28560-14-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com \
--to=palves@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox