From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19083 invoked by alias); 16 Aug 2010 18:53:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 19074 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Aug 2010 18:53:02 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:52:57 +0000 Received: (qmail 17739 invoked from network); 16 Aug 2010 18:52:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 16 Aug 2010 18:52:55 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Fixes for a couple of infrun bugs (thread hop, revert to step thread). Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 18:53:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.2 (Linux/2.6.33-29-realtime; KDE/4.4.2; x86_64; ; ) Cc: "Ulrich Weigand" References: <201008161840.o7GIel4W024223@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <201008161840.o7GIel4W024223@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201008161952.53200.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: 2010-08/txt/msg00235.txt.bz2 On Monday 16 August 2010 19:40:47, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Pedro Alves wrote: > > > Replacing the "next" by a "continue" should work. I've looked over the > > original description of the problem this is covering, and, that > > would still exercise the problem (which is gdb trying to step > > the other (main) thread with inferior_ptid still pointing at > > the thread that was being "next"ed, and in the process failing > > to remove breakpoints from memory because inferior_ptid pointed > > at an inferior thread. > > But isn't the code your patch changes under an if that's only true > if another thread is currently being stepped or nexted? If we just > do "continue" here, that's no longer the case, and the code wouldn't > be exercised at all ... That's also exercised by the other test my original patch added, IIRC (gdb.thread/thread-execl.exp). There were two bugs fixed by that patch. The specific bug the threxit-hop-specific.exp test is covering is the "failing to remove breakpoints" one. -- Pedro Alves