From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-50285-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 11082 invoked by alias); 13 Aug 2007 21:13:44 -0000
Received: (qmail 10943 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Aug 2007 21:13:43 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from sibelius.xs4all.nl (HELO brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl) (82.92.89.47)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:13:39 +0000
Received: from brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (kettenis@localhost.sibelius.xs4all.nl [127.0.0.1]) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.1/8.14.0) with ESMTP id l7DLDW4N028939; 	Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:13:32 +0200 (CEST)
Received: (from kettenis@localhost) 	by brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) id l7DLDWEw021526; 	Mon, 13 Aug 2007 23:13:32 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 21:13:00 -0000
Message-Id: <200708132113.l7DLDWEw021526@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl>
From: Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
To: drow@false.org
CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
In-reply-to: <20070813210326.GA24049@caradoc.them.org> (message from Daniel 	Jacobowitz on Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:03:26 -0400)
Subject: Re: [rfc] Delay deletion of step-resume breakpoints
References:  <20070813210326.GA24049@caradoc.them.org>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2007-08/txt/msg00258.txt.bz2

> Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:03:26 -0400
> From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>
> 
> The problem with writing a test case is that you need a step resume
> breakpoint in a non-current thread when that thread exits.  This is
> timing sensitive and I haven't had any luck reproducing it today.
> 
> Does anyone else think this patch is right (or wrong)?

The change you made to the comment:

>    /* NOTE: this will take care of any left-over step_resume breakpoints,
> -     but not any user-specified thread-specific breakpoints. */
> +     but not any user-specified thread-specific breakpoints.  We can not
> +     delete the breakpoint straight-off, because the inferior might not
> +     be stopped at the moment.  */

Makes me suspect this is just a workaround for another bug, the bug
being that the inferior isn't properly stopped when this code gets
called.

Mark