From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
To: Luis Machado <lgustavo@codesourcery.com>,
"'gdb-patches@sourceware.org'"
<gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: qemu-system debugging broken ([PATCH 03/18] remote.c/all-stop: Implement TARGET_WAITKIND_NO_RESUMED and TARGET_WNOHANG)
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2015 10:20:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <55F1595B.1050206@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <55DF8CFB.2060204@codesourcery.com>
Hi Luis,
Sorry, I was away last week, and am still catching up.
On 08/27/2015 11:19 PM, Luis Machado wrote:
> Just a heads-up. It looks like this particular commit...
>
> commit 567420d10895611e03d5ee65e6b24c16a69a6e99
> Author: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
> Date: Fri Aug 7 17:23:56 2015 +0100
>
> remote.c/all-stop: Implement TARGET_WAITKIND_NO_RESUMED and
> TARGET_WNOHANG
>
> Even though "target remote" supports target-async, the all-stop
> target_wait implementation ignores TARGET_WNOHANG. If the core
> happens to poll for events and we've already read the stop reply out
> of the serial/socket, remote_wait_as hangs forever instead of
> returning an indication that there are no events to process. This
> can't happen currently, but later changes will trigger this.
>
> gdb/ChangeLog:
> 2015-08-07 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
>
> * remote.c (remote_wait_as): If not waiting for a stop reply,
> return TARGET_WAITKIND_NO_RESUMED. If TARGET_WNOHANG is
> requested, don't block waiting forever.
>
> ... broke simulator-based debugging. The following is what i get when
> trying to run the gdb.base/break binary on qemu-system for arm eabi:
>
> _ftext () at arm-vector.S:25
> 25 ldr pc, [pc, #24] @ reset
> (gdb) load
> Loading section .text, size 0xc01c lma 0x0
> Loading section .eh_frame, size 0x48 lma 0xc01c
> Loading section .ARM.exidx, size 0x8 lma 0xc064
> Loading section .rodata, size 0x398 lma 0xc070
> Loading section .data, size 0x8e0 lma 0xc408
> Start address 0x40, load size 52452
> Transfer rate: 17074 KB/sec, 1748 bytes/write.
> (gdb) c
> Continuing.
> infrun: clear_proceed_status_thread (Thread 1)
> infrun: proceed (addr=0xffffffff, signal=GDB_SIGNAL_DEFAULT)
> infrun: resume (step=0, signal=GDB_SIGNAL_0), trap_expected=0, current
> thread [Thread 1] at 0x40
> infrun: infrun_async(1)
> infrun: prepare_to_wait
> infrun: target_wait (-1.0.0, status) =
> infrun: -1.0.0 [Thread 0],
> infrun: status->kind = ignore
> infrun: TARGET_WAITKIND_IGNORE
> infrun: prepare_to_wait
> infrun: target_wait (-1.0.0, status) =
> infrun: -1.0.0 [Thread 0],
> infrun: status->kind = ignore
> infrun: TARGET_WAITKIND_IGNORE
> infrun: prepare_to_wait
> infrun: target_wait (-1.0.0, status) =
> infrun: -1.0.0 [Thread 0],
> infrun: status->kind = no-resumed
> infrun: TARGET_WAITKIND_NO_RESUMED
> infrun: stop_waiting
> infrun: clear_step_over_info
> No unwaited-for children left.
> infrun: infrun_async(0)
> (gdb) c
> Continuing.
> Cannot execute this command while the selected thread is running.
> (gdb)
> Continuing.
> Cannot execute this command while the selected thread is running.
>
> Upon further inspection, it looks like the setting of status->kind to
> TARGET_WAITKIND_NO_RESUMED in remote_wait_as causes GDB to stop waiting
> for events and marks the active thread as running, returning the GDB
> prompt and printing the old familiar message.
>
> Without setting TARGET_WAITKIND_NO_RESUMED, things worked fine and the
> binary runs to completion, like so:
...
> It sounds like we shouldn't drop to the prompt while we wait for
> something to happen in all-stop mode either.
Yes, but if the target was resumed, how come rs->waiting_for_stop_reply
was false?
if (!rs->waiting_for_stop_reply)
{
status->kind = TARGET_WAITKIND_NO_RESUMED;
return minus_one_ptid;
}
I suspect that what happens is that qemu sends an F packet, and
we miss setting waiting_for_stop_reply true back, like we do
in the other cases:
gdb/remote:remote_wait_as ()
{
...
/* We got something. */
rs->waiting_for_stop_reply = 0;
...
case 'F': /* File-I/O request. */
remote_fileio_request (buf, rs->ctrlc_pending_p);
rs->ctrlc_pending_p = 0;
break;
...
Looks like it'd be simpler to instead only clear
waiting_for_stop_reply in the stop reply cases, instead of
re-setting it in some cases, forgetting others.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-09-10 10:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-08-27 22:19 Luis Machado
2015-09-10 10:20 ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2015-09-10 11:38 ` Luis Machado
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=55F1595B.1050206@redhat.com \
--to=palves@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=lgustavo@codesourcery.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox