From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16132 invoked by alias); 3 Sep 2002 01:47:42 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13465 invoked from network); 3 Sep 2002 01:47:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Sep 2002 01:47:25 -0000 Received: from ges.redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 642723E00; Mon, 2 Sep 2002 21:47:24 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3D7414AC.5020100@ges.redhat.com> Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 18:47:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.0) Gecko/20020824 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz , Michael Snyder Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, "Van Assche, Bart" Subject: Re: gdbserver References: <6703765BD7FDD411AB0900508BFCACD3017D106E@bnbeluimex01.barconet.com> <20020830222342.GA32278@nevyn.them.org> <3D70010F.EAE68958@redhat.com> <20020831022307.GA9974@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00030.txt.bz2 > On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 04:34:39PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > >> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >> > >> > [Bart, please try this patch.] >> > >> > List folks, >> > >> > I think the time has come for generic_prepare_to_proceed to actually be >> > used. The problem addressed by this patch is that PREPARE_TO_PROCEED >> > is not a native-only macro (and not part of the target stack). So >> > lin_lwp_prepare_to_proceed would be called when using gdbserver, and of >> > course trap_ptid would be null_ptid or stale. >> > generic_prepare_to_proceed works correctly for lin-lwp native >> > debugging, and for remote debugging. This patch fixes an incorrect >> > breakpoint hit after manually switching threads; i.e. the same >> > breakpoint would be hit a second time. I'll try to write an >> > independent test case. >> > >> > Patch look OK? > >> >> Of course, a simpler and less intrusive fix would be to simply >> define PREPARE_TO_PROCEED as generic_prepare_to_proceed, and >> remove lin_lwp_prepare_to_proceed. Yes (well using set_gdbarch_prepare_to_proceed() :-). Hmm, things to do for someone --- add a linux-tdep.c file? >> I'm not necessarily objecting to this patch -- just pointing >> out an alternative. If people think we're ready for this step, >> it's fine with me. > > > I think we're ready, but let's wait and see. For any non-threaded > target generic_prepare_to_proceed won't do any harm, since it checks > inferior_ptid != resume_ptid; for threaded targets, some version of > this function must be better than none. Post branch, the whole lot can probably be ripped out. Andrew