From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8095 invoked by alias); 1 Oct 2003 18:52:32 -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 8076 invoked from network); 1 Oct 2003 18:52:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Oct 2003 18:52:31 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.22 #1 (Debian)) id 1A4m5O-0002Kc-Uv; Wed, 01 Oct 2003 14:52:30 -0400 Date: Wed, 01 Oct 2003 18:52:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Snyder Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] New threads test Message-ID: <20031001185230.GA25467@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20030930192158.GA5615@nevyn.them.org> <3F7B1ED7.4040403@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3F7B1ED7.4040403@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00009.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 11:37:11AM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >This is a test for the remote protocol issue I'm solving with vCont. It > >also shows up in schedlock, but the simpler test makes it much clearer > >what's going wrong. OK? > > > > Umm... what is going wrong? What are you testing for here? +# It tests that the correct thread is single-stepped. More intelligibly: when gdbserver is told to single-step one thread (without holding all others schedlocked), it assumes we mean the first thread. Which might not be the _right_ thread. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer