From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25390 invoked by alias); 14 Mar 2003 17:20:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 25260 invoked from network); 14 Mar 2003 17:20:51 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO walton.kettenis.dyndns.org) (62.163.169.212) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 Mar 2003 17:20:51 -0000 Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org [192.168.0.2]) by walton.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id h2EHKktm000279; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:20:46 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: from elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h2EHKklw000604; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:20:46 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from kettenis@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org) Received: (from kettenis@localhost) by elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org (8.12.6/8.12.6/Submit) id h2EHKjnr000601; Fri, 14 Mar 2003 18:20:45 +0100 (CET) To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFC: threads PREPARE_TO_PROCEED patch References: <20030313233251.GA22466@nevyn.them.org> From: Mark Kettenis Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 17:20:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: Daniel Jacobowitz's message of "Thu, 13 Mar 2003 18:32:51 -0500" Message-ID: <86of4d7tle.fsf@elgar.kettenis.dyndns.org> X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00327.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > This patch aims to avoid problems when using a native GNU/Linux debugger > (which supports threads) with a remote protocol stub that supports threads. > lin_lwp_prepare_to_proceed gets called anyway, but it doesn't function, > because the trap_ptid is (unsurprisingly) not set; since it's internal > accounting for lin-lwp. This patch makes us use generic_prepare_to_proceed > instead of the old default_prepare_to_proceed or lin_lwp_prepare_to_proceed; > it can get everything it needs from infrun. If I recall correctly, it also, > as per the FIXME, supports switching threads better than the lin_lwp version > did. But I haven't tested that in a long time. > > This is a patch from last year, just before 5.3 was branched. At the time > it was decided to be generally right, but too risky for 5.3. Well, now I've > gone and sat on it for too long, and we're coming up on 5.4. But I've been > using this patch since August without any problems. Depending on consensus > I'd like to check it in either before or after we branch for release. > > Thoughts, thread maintainers? I'm not quite sure whether changing the gdbarch default is a good idea, but replacing lin_lwp_prepare_to_proceed with generic_prepare_to_proceed has been the intention all along. Mark