From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28175 invoked by alias); 4 Aug 2008 19:46:52 -0000 Received: (qmail 28165 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Aug 2008 19:46:52 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtagate1.de.ibm.com (HELO mtagate1.de.ibm.com) (195.212.29.150) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:46:09 +0000 Received: from d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.49]) by mtagate1.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id m74Jjken248094 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 19:45:46 GMT Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.228]) by d12nrmr1607.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.0) with ESMTP id m74Jjkem2187368 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 21:45:46 +0200 Received: from d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id m74Jjkbi028814 for ; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 21:45:46 +0200 Received: from tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com [9.152.85.9]) by d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with SMTP id m74Jjkcf028811; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 21:45:46 +0200 Message-Id: <200808041945.m74Jjkcf028811@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> Received: by tuxmaker.boeblingen.de.ibm.com (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 4 Aug 2008 21:45:46 +0200 Subject: Re: [gdbserver] Problems trying to resume dead threads To: drow@false.org (Daniel Jacobowitz) Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 19:46:00 -0000 From: "Ulrich Weigand" Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20080804182930.GA23825@caradoc.them.org> from "Daniel Jacobowitz" at Aug 04, 2008 02:29:30 PM X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.5 PL2] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2008-08/txt/msg00063.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 08:23:14PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > > Hmm, still fails with my Cell test case like this: > > writing register 25: No such process > > ptrace(regsets_fetch_inferior_registers) PID=14241: No such process > > reading register 0: No such process > > :-( It must depend on where you are in gdbserver when the process is > killed. I hadn't thought about that. > > Perhaps we should downgrade all these errors to warnings for errno == > ESRCH? It seems the "read" errors are just artifacts: because of the first error (on writing the register), the "error" call performs a longjmp to the toplevel, which leaves things in a somewhat strange state. The only "real" errors I see (in addition to the one in linux_resume_one_process) are the cases in regsets_store_inferior_registers (which is already a warning) and usr_store_inferior_registers (which is not). In any case, I don't think these should be even warnings for ESRCH: showing a warning in a situation that is completely normal and in fact handled correctly would just confuse users IMO. I'd propose to just silently ignore ESRCH errors while writing registers (in addition to your patch). What do you think? Bye, Ulrich -- Dr. Ulrich Weigand GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com