From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17756 invoked by alias); 2 Nov 2010 01:10:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 17747 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Nov 2010 01:10:29 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 02 Nov 2010 01:10:24 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id oA21AGvY000908 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 1 Nov 2010 21:10:16 -0400 Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oA21AC4H030440 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 1 Nov 2010 21:10:15 -0400 Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id oA21A8cF009078; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 02:10:09 +0100 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id oA21A6Km009077; Tue, 2 Nov 2010 02:10:06 +0100 Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 01:10:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] Fix stale tp->step_resume_breakpoint Message-ID: <20101102011006.GA9045@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> References: <20101102004301.GA7972@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <201011020105.19217.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201011020105.19217.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) 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: 2010-11/txt/msg00012.txt.bz2 On Tue, 02 Nov 2010 02:05:18 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > On Tuesday 02 November 2010 00:43:01, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > > A comment is welcome but it seems safe to me. > > I think this raises an obvious question, and hints at > a larger issue: if you find you you need to tuck away step_resume_breakpoint, > then, how come you don't need to do the same for all the other execution > command state? (step_range_start, step_range_end, step_frame_id, > continuations, etc.). > I'd assume that in the use case you trip on step_resume_breakpoint > troubles, you'd also be losing thread stepping state (or state > for any other execution command), thus your thread would end up > running free, forgetting about the previous command that was > going on before the infcall. Is that not the case? Currently I do not have a meaningful reproducer for it. But I see step_resume_breakpoint on its own does not make much sense without the associated information so I will try to save more info. Thanks, Jan