Re: PATCH: resume + threads + software stepping == boom

[Daniel Jacobowitz <dmj+@andrew.cmu.edu>]

On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 04:20:30PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
> Michael Snyder wrote:
> > I like the problem analysis, but not the implementation of the solution.
> > If we are going to always set step to zero for SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP_P,
> > then it does not make sense to set it to one again, even if the code
> > will never be reached (in theory).  I would rather see it made explicit
> > that this code should never be reached if SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP_P is true.
> > Something like this:
> > 
> > <       if (!step)
> > ---
> > >       if (!(step && SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP_P()))
> 
> Err, my logic is wrong, but you get the idea...  maybe I meant
> 	if (!step && !SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP_P())
> 

Does SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP_P () contradict the error we are detecting
here?  From reading the surrounding code, I'm not entirely sure what
the case is; is it: the current thread has stopped at a breakpoint,
and we do not want to let other threads continue, so we require that we
be single stepping so that one thread does not run independently?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Debian GNU/Linux Developer
Monta Vista Software                              Debian Security Team