From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu>
To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: PATCH: resume + threads + software stepping == boom
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:34:00 -0000
Message-id: <20010608123432.A2140@nevyn.them.org>
X-SW-Source: 2001-06/msg00171.html

resume () in infrun.c has this block:

  if (SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP_P () && step)
    {
      /* Do it the hard way, w/temp breakpoints */
      SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP (sig, 1 /*insert-breakpoints */ );
      /* ...and don't ask hardware to do it.  */
      step = 0;

Then, further down, if (use_thread_step_needed && thread_step_needed)
and there's already a breakpoint at the PC, is this:

              if (!step)
                {
                  warning ("Internal error, changing continue to step.");

That blows up, because step will always be zero here if
SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP_P ().  Is this patch OK?  It seems to work in my tests
here.


-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Monta Vista Software                              Debian Security Team
>From ac131313@cygnus.com Fri Jun 08 12:48:00 2001
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
To: Nick Duffek <nsd@redhat.com>
Cc: brobecker@act-europe.fr, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: patch to gdb on Tru64 5.1
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 12:48:00 -0000
Message-id: <3B212C20.6090005@cygnus.com>
References: <3AFC67C4.9000102@cygnus.com> <200105130240.f4D2eiU07396@rtl.cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-06/msg00172.html
Content-length: 592

> On 11-May-2001, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
> 
>> o	is it possible to compile in both tables
>> so that the correct table can be selected
>> at run time.  In theory allowing GDB to
>> handle both 4.x and 5.x core files.
> 
> 
> There's only one table.  In the transition from 4.x to 5.x, EF_* #defines
> in system header files were renamed to CF_*, but their values didn't
> change.  Therefore, a single table allows GDB to handle both 4.x and 5.x
> core files.
> 
> Maybe a comment to that effect would be enough to prevent future
> confusion?


Yes, ok, that explains it.  Thanks,

	Andrew