From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5670 invoked by alias); 27 Aug 2007 20:11:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 5474 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Aug 2007 20:11:40 -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; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:11:28 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3EE6A98153; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:11:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0679098100; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:11:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IPkvk-0008Fv-R6; Mon, 27 Aug 2007 16:11:24 -0400 Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:11:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Cc: Mark Kettenis Subject: Re: [rfc] Delay deletion of step-resume breakpoints Message-ID: <20070827201124.GA31721@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Mark Kettenis References: <20070813210326.GA24049@caradoc.them.org> <200708132113.l7DLDWEw021526@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20070813213715.GA25303@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20070813213715.GA25303@caradoc.them.org> 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/msg00486.txt.bz2 On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 05:37:15PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Mon, Aug 13, 2007 at 11:13:32PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > 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. > > That's supposed to be not a bug - I think. Hi Mark, Did you have any comments on my response? Was it sensible or garbage? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery