From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: [PATCH 07/18] Misc switch_back_to_stepped_thread cleanups
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 23:25:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1432250354-2721-8-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1432250354-2721-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com>
Several misc cleanups that prepare the tail end of this function, the
part that actually re-resumes the stepped thread.
The most non-obvious would be the currently_stepping change, I guess.
That's because it isn't ever correct to pass step=1 to target_resume
on software single-step targets, and currently_stepping works at a
conceptual higher level, it returns step=true even on software step
targets. It doesn't really matter on hardware step targets, as the
breakpoint will be hit immediately, but it's just wrong on software
step targets. I tested it against my x86 software single-step branch,
and it indeed fixes failed assertions (that catch spurious
PTRACE_SINGLESTEP requests) there.
gdb/ChangeLog:
2015-05-21 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
* infrun.c (switch_back_to_stepped_thread): Use ecs->ptid instead
of inferior_ptid. If the stepped thread vanished, return 0
instead of resuming here. Use reset_ecs. Print the prev_pc and
the current stop_pc in log message. Clear trap_expected if the
thread advanced. Don't pass currently_stepping to
do_target_resume.
v4:
ChangeLog typo fixed.
---
gdb/infrun.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gdb/infrun.c b/gdb/infrun.c
index 2c8a963..55a6622 100644
--- a/gdb/infrun.c
+++ b/gdb/infrun.c
@@ -5711,7 +5711,7 @@ switch_back_to_stepped_thread (struct execution_control_state *ecs)
{
/* Ignore threads of processes we're not resuming. */
if (!sched_multi
- && ptid_get_pid (tp->ptid) != ptid_get_pid (inferior_ptid))
+ && ptid_get_pid (tp->ptid) != ptid_get_pid (ecs->ptid))
continue;
/* When stepping over a breakpoint, we lock all threads
@@ -5775,19 +5775,17 @@ switch_back_to_stepped_thread (struct execution_control_state *ecs)
"stepped thread, it has vanished\n");
delete_thread (tp->ptid);
- keep_going (ecs);
- return 1;
+ return 0;
}
if (debug_infrun)
fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog,
"infrun: switching back to stepped thread\n");
- ecs->event_thread = tp;
- ecs->ptid = tp->ptid;
- context_switch (ecs->ptid);
+ reset_ecs (ecs, tp);
+ switch_to_thread (tp->ptid);
- stop_pc = regcache_read_pc (get_thread_regcache (ecs->ptid));
+ stop_pc = regcache_read_pc (get_thread_regcache (tp->ptid));
frame = get_current_frame ();
gdbarch = get_frame_arch (frame);
@@ -5811,23 +5809,28 @@ switch_back_to_stepped_thread (struct execution_control_state *ecs)
if (debug_infrun)
fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog,
- "infrun: expected thread advanced also\n");
+ "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. It's what keep_going would do too, if
- we called it. Must 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 ends up not installed. */
+ 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,
- currently_stepping (tp), GDB_SIGNAL_0);
+ do_target_resume (resume_ptid, 0, GDB_SIGNAL_0);
prepare_to_wait (ecs);
}
else
--
1.9.3
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-05-21 23:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 39+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-05-21 23:19 [PATCH v4 00/18] All-stop on top of non-stop Pedro Alves
2015-05-21 23:19 ` [PATCH 01/18] Fix and test "checkpoint" in non-stop mode Pedro Alves
2015-05-21 23:19 ` [PATCH 18/18] native Linux: enable always non-stop by default Pedro Alves
2015-05-21 23:19 ` [PATCH 12/18] Fix signal-while-stepping-over-bp-other-thread.exp on targets always in non-stop Pedro Alves
2015-05-21 23:19 ` [PATCH 06/18] Use keep_going in proceed and start_step_over too Pedro Alves
2015-05-21 23:19 ` [PATCH 08/18] Add comments to currently_stepping and target_resume Pedro Alves
2015-05-21 23:19 ` [PATCH 14/18] Fix step-over-{trips-on-watchpoint|lands-on-breakpoint}.exp race Pedro Alves
2015-05-21 23:19 ` [PATCH 11/18] Implement all-stop on top of a target running non-stop mode Pedro Alves
2015-09-11 20:53 ` Jan Kratochvil
2015-09-14 14:24 ` Pedro Alves
2015-05-21 23:19 ` [PATCH 04/18] Make thread_still_needs_step_over consider stepping_over_watchpoint too Pedro Alves
2015-05-21 23:19 ` [PATCH 05/18] Embed the pending step-over chain in thread_info objects Pedro Alves
2015-05-21 23:19 ` [PATCH 16/18] PPC64: Fix gdb.arch/ppc64-atomic-inst.exp with displaced stepping Pedro Alves
2015-05-21 23:19 ` [PATCH 02/18] Change adjust_pc_after_break's prototype Pedro Alves
2015-05-21 23:19 ` [PATCH 03/18] remote.c/all-stop: Implement TARGET_WAITKIND_NO_RESUMED and TARGET_WNOHANG Pedro Alves
2015-05-21 23:19 ` [PATCH 09/18] Factor out code to re-resume stepped thread Pedro Alves
2015-05-21 23:25 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2015-05-21 23:28 ` [PATCH 13/18] Fix interrupt-noterm.exp on targets always in non-stop Pedro Alves
2015-05-21 23:50 ` [PATCH 17/18] S/390: displaced stepping and PC-relative RIL-b/RIL-c instructions Pedro Alves
2015-05-21 23:56 ` [PATCH 10/18] Teach non-stop to do in-line step-overs (stop all, step, restart) Pedro Alves
2015-05-21 23:59 ` [PATCH 15/18] Disable displaced stepping if trying it fails Pedro Alves
2015-08-07 16:58 ` [PATCH v4 00/18] All-stop on top of non-stop Pedro Alves
2015-08-12 18:32 ` Joel Brobecker
2015-08-12 19:05 ` Pedro Alves
2015-08-12 20:26 ` Joel Brobecker
2015-08-12 20:31 ` Luis Machado
2015-08-12 20:50 ` Joel Brobecker
2015-08-12 21:07 ` Luis Machado
2015-08-13 16:04 ` Pedro Alves
2015-08-13 18:17 ` Joel Brobecker
2015-08-13 17:27 ` Pedro Alves
2015-08-13 18:29 ` Joel Brobecker
2015-08-12 19:39 ` Luis Machado
2015-08-12 19:51 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2015-08-12 19:59 ` Joel Brobecker
2015-08-12 20:18 ` Luis Machado
2015-08-12 20:33 ` Joel Brobecker
2015-08-12 20:40 ` Luis Machado
2015-08-12 20:56 ` Joel Brobecker
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=1432250354-2721-8-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