From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7574 invoked by alias); 20 Nov 2014 05:11:16 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 7564 invoked by uid 89); 20 Nov 2014 05:11:15 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 05:11:13 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 207B21168B9 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 00:11:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id Q1pKw8kQtjJ4 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 00:11:12 -0500 (EST) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B192B1168B4 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 00:11:11 -0500 (EST) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 9AB2740F79; Thu, 20 Nov 2014 09:11:09 +0400 (RET) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 05:11:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: RFC: skip_inline_frames failed assertion resuming from breakpoint on LynxOS Message-ID: <20141120051109.GR5774@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2014-11/txt/msg00452.txt.bz2 Hello, I was wondering what you guys would think of a patch like this. I am a bit uncertain, because I don't understand everything that is happening - and the problem is that this is happening with a fairly massive and complex program that I don't have access to, on a system that is also fairly opaque. When I'm lucky, getting answers is only very hard. I am still trying to reproduce the problem locally in order to find out more, but I couldn't understand why, in principle, one thread couldn't receive multiple notifications during the same single-step if the system decides to queue up signals? If that were the case, wouldn't the attached patch make sense? (currently untested against the program that triggered the issue, as I think I understand how inline-frame works, and what it does, but I am not sure I get it all). Thank you! -- Joel