From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13972 invoked by alias); 10 Oct 2003 00:05:36 -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 13961 invoked from network); 10 Oct 2003 00:05:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Oct 2003 00:05:36 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (nat-pool-rdu-dmz.redhat.com [172.16.52.200] (may be forged)) by mx1.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9A05ZM04176 for ; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 20:05:35 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9A05YD07306; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 20:05:34 -0400 Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id h9A05Xi13555; Thu, 9 Oct 2003 17:05:33 -0700 Message-ID: <3F85F7CD.6090809@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 00:05:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] New threads test References: <20030930192158.GA5615@nevyn.them.org> <3F7B1ED7.4040403@redhat.com> <20031001185230.GA25467@nevyn.them.org> <20031009141057.GB29621@nevyn.them.org> <3F85B9DC.4020804@redhat.com> <20031009194939.GA20253@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20031009194939.GA20253@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-10/txt/msg00335.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 12:41:16PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > >>Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >> >>>On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 02:52:30PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >>> >>> >>>>On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 11:37:11AM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>This is a test for the remote protocol issue I'm solving with vCont. It >>>>>>also shows up in schedlock, but the simpler test makes it much clearer >>>>>>what's going wrong. OK? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>Umm... what is going wrong? What are you testing for here? >>>> >>>>+# It tests that the correct thread is single-stepped. >>>> >>>>More intelligibly: when gdbserver is told to single-step one thread >>>>(without holding all others schedlocked), it assumes we mean the first >>>>thread. Which might not be the _right_ thread. >> >>Hmmm... it should assume we mean the _current_ thread >>(ie. the one that had a stop event). The remote protocol >>should cover this (and did, last I checked). > > > I could have changed gdbserver to default to that, in fact I thought I > had (but I hadn't). But it still breaks down if the user switches > threads explicitly - Hmmm, that's what target_prepare_to_proceed is supposed to handle. Err... was. What happened to it? I missed this discussion, I guess. >see vCont, which this is testing. Can you refer me to the threads on vcont? I've been seeing references to it, but haven't found the origin or the definition.