From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 79337 invoked by alias); 7 Apr 2015 16:59:24 -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 79325 invoked by uid 89); 7 Apr 2015 16:59:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD 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 (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 07 Apr 2015 16:59:22 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2EA538E3C5; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 16:59:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t37GxJCd003441; Tue, 7 Apr 2015 12:59:20 -0400 Message-ID: <55240CE7.2080506@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 16:59:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Honour software single step in fallback of displaced stepping References: <1428421925-18025-1-git-send-email-qiyaoltc@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <1428421925-18025-1-git-send-email-qiyaoltc@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-04/txt/msg00235.txt.bz2 On 04/07/2015 04:52 PM, Yao Qi wrote: > From: Yao Qi > > Hi, > This patch set fixes many fails I've seen in > gdb.threads/non-stop-fair-events.exp on arm-linux target. I don't see > they are covered by Pedro's "All-stop on top of non-stop" V2, so I > post them out for the review. They actually are. :-) I tested v2 against x86 software single-step, and it caught issues like that. This patch: [PATCH v2 07/23] Embed the pending step-over chain in thread_info objects https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2015-04/msg00218.html splits that code you're touching to a separate "start_step_over_inferior" function. And then this patch: [PATCH v2 11/23] Use keep_going in proceed and start_step_over too https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2015-04/msg00203.html rewrites that whole function to defer to keep_going instead. keep_going already handles the case of the breakpoint disappearing (thread_still_needs_step_over returns false). And in case the breakpoint is still around, it ends in 'resume' again, which is then the only place that knows how to start a displaced step. I don't mind if you push your patch in first. I'll just end up deleting that code again when I rebase it. Thanks, Pedro Alves