From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11676 invoked by alias); 31 Oct 2002 21:01:01 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 11656 invoked from network); 31 Oct 2002 21:00:59 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Oct 2002 21:00:59 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 187NMa-00028e-00; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 16:00:28 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 187MRg-0006ne-00; Thu, 31 Oct 2002 16:01:40 -0500 Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 13:01:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Cc: msnyder@redhat.com, kettenis@gnu.org Subject: Re: RFA: lin-lwp bug with software-single-step or schedlock Message-ID: <20021031210140.GA25922@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, msnyder@redhat.com, kettenis@gnu.org References: <20021023042615.GA6358@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021023042615.GA6358@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-10/txt/msg00610.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 23, 2002 at 12:26:15AM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > 2002-10-23 Daniel Jacobowitz > > * 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