From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
To: Markus Deuling <deuling@de.ibm.com>
Cc: GDB Patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC] remote step over pthread_create()/dlopen() bug
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2007 16:42:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20070124164209.GA14985@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <45B78B4E.8050903@de.ibm.com>
On Wed, Jan 24, 2007 at 05:37:34PM +0100, Markus Deuling wrote:
> diff -urN src/gdb/gdbserver/linux-low.c dev/gdb/gdbserver/linux-low.c
> --- src/gdb/gdbserver/linux-low.c 2007-01-09 23:55:10.000000000 +0100
> +++ dev/gdb/gdbserver/linux-low.c 2007-01-24 17:27:45.000000000 +0100
> @@ -1078,8 +1078,11 @@
> GDB removes the breakpoint to single-step a particular thread
> past it, then re-inserts it and resumes all threads. We want
> to report the second thread without resuming it in the interim. */
> - if (process->status_pending_p)
> - check_removed_breakpoint (process);
> + if (process->status_pending_p)
> + {
> + check_removed_breakpoint (process);
> + return 0;
> + }
>
> if (process->status_pending_p)
> * (int *) flag_p = 1;
>
> Now the pending_flag for this process isn't set, which maybe cause
> misbehavior in some ways.
> Now linux_queue_one_thread() isn't called. Instead
> linux_continue_one_thread() is called and the
> original thread is resumed.
>
> I really would like to know your opinion about that patch. Is it ok to
> apply or is there a better
> way to handle it? Do you see any problems resulting from that patch?
Sorry, I think that's the symptom, not the problem. GDB stops every
thread when a new thread is created, but gdbserver is designed not to
do that - it performs better when there are a lot of threads.
So we expect the two cases (native and remote) to be different. GDB
ought to handle either one correctly.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery
prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-01-24 16:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-01-24 16:37 Markus Deuling
2007-01-24 16:42 ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
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=20070124164209.GA14985@nevyn.them.org \
--to=drow@false.org \
--cc=deuling@de.ibm.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
/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