From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32417 invoked by alias); 28 May 2012 21:27:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 32409 invoked by uid 22791); 28 May 2012 21:27:57 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 May 2012 21:27:45 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q4SLRiht015428 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Mon, 28 May 2012 17:27:44 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q4SLRh9M021562; Mon, 28 May 2012 17:27:44 -0400 Message-ID: <4FC3EDCF.2070200@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 21:27:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kratochvil CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] infrun: don't resume the inferior when we notice a new thread (new_thread_event). References: <20120528204623.25996.69879.stgit@brno.lan> <20120528211937.GA14224@host2.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20120528211937.GA14224@host2.jankratochvil.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2012-05/txt/msg01006.txt.bz2 On 05/28/2012 10:19 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > On Mon, 28 May 2012 22:46:23 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: >> If anyone as any idea why things are done in the current way, please >> speak up. > > Not much, just that linux-nat.c linux_handle_extended_wait has this code by > you: > if (non_stop) > { > /* Add the new thread to GDB's lists as soon as possible > so that: > if (!thread_db_attach_lwp (new_lp->ptid)) > { > /* We're not using thread_db. Add it to GDB's > list. */ > target_post_attach (GET_LWP (new_lp->ptid)); > add_thread (new_lp->ptid); > } > Yeah, I've mentioned before that I have second thoughts on that bit. If the inferior spawns short-lived threads rapidly, doing this for all threads, as opposed to refreshing the list on demand or when presenting a stop to user, for example, slows down the debug, and generates a bunch of frontend refreshing that is likely useless. > And for !non_stop mode add_thread gets delayed till handle_inferior_event; > which should not hurt. If this add would be done unconditionally in > linux-nat.c then this handle_inferior_event would never be reached. Yeah, on GNU/Linux. But it could in principle still be reached on other targets. I haven't audited all. > But I do not see why to make that change, handle_inferior_event works. -- Pedro Alves