From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6456 invoked by alias); 15 Aug 2008 18:22:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 6433 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Aug 2008 18:22:23 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com) (65.113.40.141) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:21:48 +0000 Received: from mailhost2.vmware.com (mailhost2.vmware.com [10.16.64.160]) by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E924B6822; Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:21:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.92.47] (promb-2s-dhcp47.eng.vmware.com [10.20.92.47]) by mailhost2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2EAA3C122; Fri, 15 Aug 2008 11:21:44 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <48A5C90E.7080801@vmware.com> Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:22:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ulrich Weigand CC: Pedro Alves , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [rfc] Preferred thread event reporting: Linux native target References: <200808142150.m7ELoMaw023976@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <200808142150.m7ELoMaw023976@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2008-08/txt/msg00434.txt.bz2 Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Pedro Alves wrote: > >>> -- this is actually simply the currently selected thread >>> (i.e. the current value of inferior_ptid). >> Disagreed. inferior_ptid will change if an event happens in >> another thread while you're stepping, but the core decides the event >> was not a good reason to stop. E.g., thread hopping. > > Hmm, but if we "thread hop" inferior_ptid should be prefered > anyway (to get the internal "thread hop" action over with as > quickly as possible), and afterwards we're back to the thread > the user is looking at, right? After that, I think, we're back to whichever thread the OS decides to schedule next. I don't think there is any guarantee that that will be the one the user was previously looking at.