From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9745 invoked by alias); 2 Aug 2007 19:42:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 9737 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Aug 2007 19:42:28 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:42:22 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9CB9A98122; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 19:42:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 844B698100; Thu, 2 Aug 2007 19:42:22 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IGgYu-0001nx-88; Thu, 02 Aug 2007 15:42:20 -0400 Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 19:42:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch, rfc, rft] Multi-threaded single-step vs. breakpoint problems (prepare_to_proceed) Message-ID: <20070802194220.GB6563@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200708011952.l71JqO6e015264@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200708011952.l71JqO6e015264@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-08/txt/msg00021.txt.bz2 On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 09:52:21PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > The main changes to prepare_to_proceed are do only ever switch threads > if we stopped due to hitting a breakpoint which is still set, and the > user switched threads in the meantime. If we're also about to single- > step, we remember which thread we were supposed to step, and switch > back to it in handle_inferior_event after we're stepped past that > breakpoint. I've no objection and the patch seems fine to me. I wonder what happens if the other thread hit a watchpoint, or some other non-breakpoint event, though; on some platforms watchpoints must be stepped past similarly. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery