From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 116475 invoked by alias); 21 May 2015 09:17:58 -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 113777 invoked by uid 89); 21 May 2015 09:17:57 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-pa0-f41.google.com Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-pa0-f41.google.com) (209.85.220.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 21 May 2015 09:17:56 +0000 Received: by padbw4 with SMTP id bw4so99102332pad.0 for ; Thu, 21 May 2015 02:17:54 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.68.192.74 with SMTP id he10mr3794296pbc.30.1432199874904; Thu, 21 May 2015 02:17:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from E107787-LIN (gcc1-power7.osuosl.org. [140.211.15.137]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id eo3sm18550909pbd.66.2015.05.21.02.17.51 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 21 May 2015 02:17:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Yao Qi To: Pedro Alves Cc: Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 10/17] Implement all-stop on top of a target running non-stop mode References: <1429267521-21047-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <1429267521-21047-11-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <86a8y1zqkd.fsf@gmail.com> <5538017B.9040907@redhat.com> <86h9s6x9eo.fsf@gmail.com> <555B7C14.1020504@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 09:17:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <555B7C14.1020504@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Tue, 19 May 2015 19:08:20 +0100") Message-ID: <86twv6qog2.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-05/txt/msg00532.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves writes: > So the only difference between stepping over a breakpoint in-line or > out-of-line here, is that with the former, threads had been previously > paused, so we re-resume them while the signal handler runs (to avoid > debugger-induced inferior deadlock). Looks in-line stepping and out-of-line stepping behaves similarly under this context. > > Let me know if that answered your question. Yes, that is what I want to know, thanks. --=20 Yao (=E9=BD=90=E5=B0=A7)