Re: schedlock.exp questions

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Wed, Aug 25, 2004 at 05:10:37PM +0200, Orjan Friberg wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >
> >No.  The request was "single-step this thread, but allow other threads
> >to run while you do it".  Other threads might report a breakpoint (not
> >possible in this testcase), but they shouldn't report a single-step
> >trap - they shouldn't singlestep.
> 
> Thanks for clarifying.  Would you mind explaining the "not possible in 
> this testcase" part?  I do get spurious SIGTRAPs for the other threads 
> from the "break 41 if arg != 5" breakpoint, reported as SIGTRAP (instead 
> of as breakpoint hits).

What should happen is:
  - we stop all threads
  - we see that a thread has hit this breakpoint
  - we check that this breakpoint should stop
    - it shouldn't!  condition is false!
  - we singlestep this thread past the breakpoint
  - we resume

This is a twisty and nasty part of infrun.  It is full of bugs and
things that need to be rearchitected.  So it's quite likely it doesn't
work right.

Is this native or remote (gdbserver based)?  I have some patches which
make it substantially more reliable on slow native targets but I
haven't had enough time to test them properly.  They shouldn't affect
remote though.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz