From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18581 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2008 17:15:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 18567 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Aug 2008 17:15:29 -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 17:14:54 +0000 Received: (qmail 4138 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2008 17:14:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 18 Aug 2008 17:14:52 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc] Preferred thread event reporting: Linux native target Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2008 17:15:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: "Ulrich Weigand" References: <200808142150.m7ELoMaw023976@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> <200808152354.32763.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200808152354.32763.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200808181815.32875.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/msg00494.txt.bz2 On Friday 15 August 2008 23:54:31, Pedro Alves wrote: > > and afterwards we're back to the thread > > the user is looking at, right? > > Well, in all-stop, there's nothing doing that currently. when > you switch inferior_ptid (in all-stop mode) to handle a > possible stop, and then you decide you should not stop, there's > nothing reverting back to the previous thread. inferior_ptid will > stay pointing to the last thread you resumed (the hopping thread), > until you hit another stop event, and context_switch to the thread > that took it. Hmmm, I was just taking another look at this, and, you may be right here. We'd have also have requested a single-step in the thread we wanted before detecting a need for a thread hop, so, when we get to eventually handling that original single-step finishing, we'd context-switch to it again. I guess this would make your change OK. If not, how does this work then? -- Pedro Alves