From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14523 invoked by alias); 6 Jun 2003 21:36:53 -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 14498 invoked from network); 6 Jun 2003 21:36:52 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.131) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 6 Jun 2003 21:36:52 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E33E2B5F; Fri, 6 Jun 2003 17:36:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3EE1096D.8030801@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 06 Jun 2003 21:36:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: Always use at least schedlock_step for software single step targets References: <20030605143728.GA31355@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00243.txt.bz2 > It effectively forces schedlock_step for SSS targets > (but I guess you knew that). People appear to be very > diverse in their opinion about whether schedlock is the > "right" behavior or the "wrong" one. You might not see > the behavior that you're trying to debug, if you're only > stepping one thread. There are targets for which sched lock almost meaningless, but then, hopefully those targets also support hardware single step. The change looks to be the best option. Andrew