From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20393 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2008 18:05:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 20384 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Apr 2008 18:05:30 -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; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:05:01 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B656983DB; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:05:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D19198060; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 18:05:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JoMrT-0005a1-CY; Tue, 22 Apr 2008 14:04:59 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:55:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Paul Pluzhnikov Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] gdb could leave inferior running as a background process Message-ID: <20080422180459.GB20664@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Paul Pluzhnikov , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <8ac60eac0804220741g6b830620h6f83c627fb00474b@mail.gmail.com> <20080422155548.GA13076@caradoc.them.org> <8ac60eac0804220946r689605e1pd4803c2aea3a9e07@mail.gmail.com> <8ac60eac0804221051p6ad56743g202a6f920d1c6315@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8ac60eac0804221051p6ad56743g202a6f920d1c6315@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) 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: 2008-04/txt/msg00480.txt.bz2 On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 10:51:29AM -0700, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote: > On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 9:46 AM, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote: > > > Would attached patch work better then? > > Actually, the second patch doesn't fix the problem by itself: > inferior is resumed, then warning is issued, then we block. > > So both the first and second patches are needed. Any time the second patch is "needed", there's still a race condition and the bug is present. We're running in parallel with the inferior at this point. Where is the warning issued? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery