From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7607 invoked by alias); 9 Jan 2003 01:51:05 -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 7600 invoked from network); 9 Jan 2003 01:51:04 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 9 Jan 2003 01:51:04 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18WTj8-0000xd-00; Wed, 08 Jan 2003 21:51:30 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18WRqj-0002CO-00; Wed, 08 Jan 2003 20:51:13 -0500 Date: Thu, 09 Jan 2003 01:51:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Snyder Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: threads and target-function-calls Message-ID: <20030109015113.GA8431@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <3E1B7829.6B6E8BAF@redhat.com> <20030108010842.GA30628@nevyn.them.org> <3E1CC6E3.51B1227F@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3E1CC6E3.51B1227F@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00358.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jan 08, 2003 at 04:48:35PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2003 at 05:00:25PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote: > > > Hey folks, > > > > > > Did you know that (at least on x86 linux), if you have a multi-thread > > > program and you execute a target function call, all the threads get to > > > run? Doesn't that seem like a bad thing? Wouldn't we really rather > > > only run the thread that is executing the target function call? > > > > Eeeeek! I think I agree with you here; that's the logical behavior. > > It never occured to me to try. > > I just happened to have "debug lin-lwp" turned on. > > Perhaps we need to think about what "target function call" > actually means in the presence of threads that can interact > with each other. Yeah. My biggest concern is an interface one. What the heck _should_ happen? And how do we present it to the user? [On an interesting side note, another debugger developer mentioned to me that their product supports conditional breakpoints by inserting code into the inferior. That'd be nice to do some day... but we don't really have the architecture for it right now...] -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer