From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 77964 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2015 19:04:14 -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 77933 invoked by uid 89); 30 Nov 2015 19:04:13 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: usplmg21.ericsson.net Received: from usplmg21.ericsson.net (HELO usplmg21.ericsson.net) (198.24.6.65) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 19:04:12 +0000 Received: from EUSAAHC005.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.87]) by usplmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 10.BD.32102.7AD9C565; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 20:04:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from [142.133.110.144] (147.117.188.8) by smtp-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.188.89) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Mon, 30 Nov 2015 14:04:09 -0500 Subject: Re: Move threads out of jumppad without single step To: Pedro Alves , Yao Qi , References: <86zixzvhj1.fsf@gmail.com> <565C6043.4040106@redhat.com> From: Simon Marchi Message-ID: <565C9DA8.4010605@ericsson.com> Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 19:04:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <565C6043.4040106@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-11/txt/msg00611.txt.bz2 On 15-11-30 09:42 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > So I assume it's much simpler to just run to [1] as well, and then issue > a normal software single-step when you get there. > > Also, not sure, but it's possible the stabilize threads machinery may > need work to handle the "wrong threads" hitting that "out of jump pad" > single-step breakpoint for another thread, and not have them start > a new start over, but instead have them be locked immediately. To be clear, do you mean, when single stepping the last jump pad instruction, the jump that goes back to the regular code? When putting a breakpoint on the next pc of that instruction, it means putting a breakpoint in the regular code. However, when doing a single step in gdbserver, aren't all other threads stopped?