From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6059 invoked by alias); 7 Feb 2014 20:12:02 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 6049 invoked by uid 89); 7 Feb 2014 20:12:02 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 20:12:01 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s17KBxgX027609 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 7 Feb 2014 15:11:59 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id s17KBv7i001380; Fri, 7 Feb 2014 15:11:58 -0500 Message-ID: <52F53E0C.2010105@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 20:12:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Sterling Augustine CC: gdb-patches Subject: Re: [PATCH] RFC: All stepping threads need the same checks and cleanup as the currently stepping thread References: <52DFCFCF.4030101@redhat.com> <52E16518.1020800@redhat.com> <52F53979.9060707@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <52F53979.9060707@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-02/txt/msg00222.txt.bz2 On 02/07/2014 07:52 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > On 01/23/2014 06:53 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > >> > There's a spot in resume that uses >> > step_after_step_resume_breakpoint too (for software >> > single-step targets), that I haven't really given much >> > thought yet. It might well need something there too. > So I've stared at that piece of code, and I'm not seeing > anything that would need to change. I forgot to mention, but for the archives, I also tested the patch against a software single-step target (or rather my series that makes x86-64 use that). The new test fails before the patch there too, and passes after. -- Pedro Alves