Re: [non-stop] 07/10 non-stop inferior control

Daniel Jacobowitz
2008-06-25T19:44:33Z

On Sun, Jun 15, 2008 at 10:05:16PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> It is also needed to have support to interrupt/suspend a simple
> thread so a new target_stop_ptid method was added to request
> the target to interrupt a single thread.

How about adding a ptid argument to to_stop instead? I think the code
will be shared in most cases.

> @@ -1810,11 +1847,16 @@ handle_inferior_event (struct execution_
> && ecs->ws.kind != TARGET_WAITKIND_SIGNALLED && ecs->new_thread_event)
> add_thread (ecs->ptid);
>
> - /* Mark all threads as not-executing. In non-stop, this should be
> - adjusted to only mark ecs->ptid. */
> - if (ecs->ws.kind != TARGET_WAITKIND_IGNORE
> - && stop_soon != STOP_QUIETLY)
> - set_executing (pid_to_ptid (-1), 0);
> + if (ecs->ws.kind != TARGET_WAITKIND_IGNORE)
> + {
> + /* Mark the stopped threads accordingly. */
> + if (!non_stop
> + || ecs->ws.kind == TARGET_WAITKIND_EXITED
> + || ecs->ws.kind == TARGET_WAITKIND_SIGNALLED)
> + set_executing (pid_to_ptid (-1), 0);
> + else
> + set_executing (ecs->ptid, 0);
> + }
>
> switch (ecs->ws.kind)
> {

Are we going to miss the stop_soon check here?

> - switch_to_thread (tp->ptid);
> + if (non_stop)
> + context_switch_to (tp->ptid);
> + else
> + switch_to_thread (tp->ptid);
> +

Ow ow my head, I really wish we didn't need both of these. We'll
never keep track of which is which. Will we eventually be able to
merge them?

> - add_prefix_cmd ("thread", class_run, thread_command, _("\
> + c = add_prefix_cmd ("thread", class_run, thread_command, _("\
> Use this command to switch between threads.\n\
> The new thread ID must be currently known."),
> &thread_cmd_list, "thread ", 1, &cmdlist);

Indentation on that last line.

Otherwise OK.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery