Re: RFA: lin-lwp bug with software-single-step or schedlock

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 12:26:15AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> 2002-10-23  Daniel Jacobowitz  <drow@mvista.com>
> 
> 	* lin-lwp.c (lin_lwp_resume): Remove resume_all test for !step.

Based on Mark's comments, I've committed this.  Later we should hash
out exactly when which thread should get which signal, and write
testcases for that...

> Index: lin-lwp.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/lin-lwp.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.35
> diff -u -p -r1.35 lin-lwp.c
> --- lin-lwp.c	27 Aug 2002 22:37:06 -0000	1.35
> +++ lin-lwp.c	23 Oct 2002 04:23:13 -0000
> @@ -579,11 +579,8 @@ lin_lwp_resume (ptid_t ptid, int step, e
>    struct lwp_info *lp;
>    int resume_all;
>  
> -  /* Apparently the interpretation of PID is dependent on STEP: If
> -     STEP is non-zero, a specific PID means `step only this process
> -     id'.  But if STEP is zero, then PID means `continue *all*
> -     processes, but give the signal only to this one'.  */
> -  resume_all = (PIDGET (ptid) == -1) || !step;
> +  /* A specific PTID means `step only this process id'.  */
> +  resume_all = (PIDGET (ptid) == -1);
>  
>    if (resume_all)
>      iterate_over_lwps (resume_set_callback, NULL);
> 

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer