From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 73920 invoked by alias); 13 Jan 2016 00:37:10 -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 73903 invoked by uid 89); 13 Jan 2016 00:37:09 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=UD:fork-plus-threads.exp, sk:forkpl, sk:fork-pl, UD:gdb.threads 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; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 00:37:08 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FFDCC00230B for ; Wed, 13 Jan 2016 00:37:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u0D0b6oB005266; Tue, 12 Jan 2016 19:37:06 -0500 Message-ID: <56959C32.3070200@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2016 00:37:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jan Kratochvil CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Regression for gdb.threads/fork-plus-threads.exp [Re: [PATCH 3/6] List inferiors/threads/pspaces in ascending order] References: <1445507944-9197-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <1445507944-9197-4-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <20160108203938.GA24397@host1.jankratochvil.net> <5693BEBC.4020404@redhat.com> <5694E1F9.8070307@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5694E1F9.8070307@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-01/txt/msg00247.txt.bz2 On 01/12/2016 11:22 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > This is also yet another instance of breakpoint re-setting being too coarse [1]... > If inferior 1 forked inferior 3, why would we need to re-set breakpoint locations > of inferior 2? I think we can avoid revamping breakpoint re-set completely, by > instead limiting re-sets to the program space that triggered it. > > [1] - https://sourceware.org/gdb/wiki/BreakpointReset Patch posted here: https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-01/msg00246.html Thanks, Pedro Alves