Re: [rfc] [2/7] infrun cleanup: miscellaneous cleanups

["Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com>]

Pedro Alves:
> On Sunday 07 December 2008 01:23:40, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > On Sunday 07 December 2008 00:17:36, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > >    if (!ecs->wait_some_more)
> > >      {
> > > -      struct inferior *inf =3D find_inferior_pid (ptid_get_pid (ecs->p=
> tid));
> > > +=20=20=20=20=20=20
> > Please change this bit to:
> >=20
> > - =A0 =A0 =A0struct inferior *inf =3D find_inferior_pid (ptid_get_pid (ec=
> s->ptid));
> > + =A0 =A0 =A0struct inferior *inf =3D find_inferior_pid (ptid_get_pid (in=
> ferior_ptid));
> 
> Looking again, it would be more correct (and safest as it doesn't change cu=
> rrent
> behaviour) to leave it as ptid_get_pid(ecs->ptid) in this patch, and change=
>  it
> to ptid_get_pid (ptid) in the last patch (the event ptid).

Well, I was concerned about the cases where today handle_inferior_event
*modifies* the ecs->ptid it gets as input (e.g. thread-hopping or switching
back to the single-stepped thread).  I'm not sure if that can today actually
ever cause it switch to a different *inferior*, but it appears it could.

Using simply the caller's ptid means we will miss that switch.  Using
inferior_ptid should catch it, however, as handle_inferior_event will
have done a switch_to_thread in addition to changing ecs->ptid.

Bye,
Ulrich

-- 
  Dr. Ulrich Weigand
  GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE
  Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com