From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15510 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2008 13:07:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 15492 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Aug 2008 13:07:48 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:06:58 +0000 Received: (qmail 31615 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2008 13:06:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 18 Aug 2008 13:06:55 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: remote-mips.c, always a thread Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:07:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 References: <200808181329.28252.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200808181329.28252.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200808181407.35078.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2008-08/txt/msg00479.txt.bz2 On Monday 18 August 2008 13:29:28, Pedro Alves wrote: > - mips_load was clearing inferior_ptid, and calling clear_symtab_users. I > notice that inferior_ptid is being cleared after a load command, but that > is wrong, I believe. See this change of Jim's to monitor.c, that removed > this clearing from the monitor target: > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2001-09/msg00125.html > > I'm applying the exact same reasoning and change here. > Hmmm, I just noticed that mips_kill is being used to interrupting the target ( '\03' / ^C / SIGINT ), instead of installing a SIGINT handler like at least monitor.c, remote.c and remote-sim.c do. This looks broken to me -- target_kill is definitelly not the right target method for this (and neither is the "kill" command). > This hasn't been tested at all, but, does it looks reasonable? I forgot to add a new target_thread_alive function, otherwise, info threads gets rid of the thread I just added. -- Pedro Alves