From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28030 invoked by alias); 29 Feb 2004 03:14:48 -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 28023 invoked from network); 29 Feb 2004 03:14:47 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 29 Feb 2004 03:14:47 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1AxHPj-0001ey-AT for ; Sat, 28 Feb 2004 22:14:47 -0500 Date: Sun, 29 Feb 2004 03:14:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [ob] Don't clobber inferior_ptid in read_pc_pid Message-ID: <20040229031447.GA6234@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20040228173541.GA15776@nevyn.them.org> <4040ECE7.8010607@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4040ECE7.8010607@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-02/txt/msg00878.txt.bz2 On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 02:32:55PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >Another issue found in testing on arm-linux. A return was added to this > >function back in June; if we return from the middle of it, we leave > >inferior_ptid set to the wrong thread. This causes a "!ptid_equal > >(ecs->ptid, inferior_ptid)" test to fail, since we called read_pc_pid > >with ecs->ptid. That leads to not calling context_switch; which clobbers > >the stepping range for the previous thread; which causes stepping to stop > >unexpectedly. > > > >I'll commit this patch as obvious in a day or two. > > Can you please commit it now? Sorry, I had left before this message arrived. My goal in waiting was to retest on another target, which I did not have time for this morning, and to wait for the release branch to be confusion on my own part about the timing, since as of your next-to-last announcement you were planning on back-dating the release branch. These are patches I consider suitable for the release branch and it's not much extra work for me to retest and commit them on two branches. When I check in patches immediately people complain that I am acting impetuously. When I wait you ask me to commit the patch now. When I get back and see your message I get: > Daniel, what the f- are you doing? I'm half way through cutting a > branch, the last thing I need is you being a fly-by nighter checking in > random stuff. OK, I'm wrong no matter what I do. I'll come back to fixing ARM in a few days when the dust has settled. FYI, I stopped committing to the release branch as soon as I saw your message asking me to. You don't need to curse at me about it. In fact, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer