From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: RFC: Always use at least schedlock_step for software single step targets
Date: Thu, 05 Jun 2003 14:37:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030605143728.GA31355@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
This deserves a bit of explanation. Andrew, this is the same bug I was
telling you about in the hallway at the Summit. The fix is a bit different,
though.
Our threading test results have always been fairly bad on targets which use
software single step. One reason was that we didn't properly associate the
single-step breakpoint with a thread. So if another thread hit it before
the expected one, then that thread would get a SIGTRAP. Oops. Worse, if I
set up thread hopping we'd lose the fact that we were originally
single-stepping a different thread, and lose control of the inferior.
I put together a patch to fix both of these. It was pretty gross, so I'm
not including it here, but it worked. It had a different problem, however:
we livelock in schedlock.exp because other threads always hit the breakpoint
before the one we're trying to step. A similar problem was solved in
lin-lwp by an ad-hoc scheduler, if I recall correctly. I concluded that the
tradeoffs for implementing this sort of scheduler on a remote stub were too
high, and used this patch instead. If we're inserting a software single
step breakpoint, be sure to resume only one thread.
Thoughts?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
2003-06-05 Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
* infrun.c (resume): Always assume schedlock_step for
software single step.
Index: infrun.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/infrun.c,v
retrieving revision 1.109
diff -u -p -r1.109 infrun.c
--- infrun.c 7 May 2003 18:35:57 -0000 1.109
+++ infrun.c 5 Jun 2003 14:30:43 -0000
@@ -625,10 +625,11 @@ resume (int step, enum target_signal sig
}
if ((scheduler_mode == schedlock_on) ||
- (scheduler_mode == schedlock_step &&
- (step || singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p)))
+ (scheduler_mode == schedlock_step && step)
+ || singlestep_breakpoints_inserted_p)
{
/* User-settable 'scheduler' mode requires solo thread resume. */
+ /* Software single-step doesn't work right with multiple threads. */
resume_ptid = inferior_ptid;
}
next reply other threads:[~2003-06-05 14:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-06-05 14:37 Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2003-06-05 18:44 ` Michael Snyder
2003-06-05 18:47 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-06-05 19:04 ` Michael Snyder
2003-06-06 21:36 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-06-06 23:58 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20030605143728.GA31355@nevyn.them.org \
--to=drow@mvista.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox