From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 99216 invoked by alias); 24 Jun 2016 22:37:53 -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 99198 invoked by uid 89); 24 Jun 2016 22:37:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-3.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= 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; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 22:37:51 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6CE864387; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 22:37:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u5OMbnQ3028391; Fri, 24 Jun 2016 18:37:49 -0400 Subject: Re: RFA/gdbserver: GDB internal-error debugging threaded program with breakpoint and forks To: Joel Brobecker References: <20160512171650.GC26324@adacore.com> <5734C06C.8040008@codesourcery.com> <20160623225935.GC3295@adacore.com> <20160624181152.GD3295@adacore.com> <31daa4d2-359d-db9a-e9c8-d7bfbb327570@redhat.com> <20160624223616.GE3295@adacore.com> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <9170a848-2c63-0e42-a478-23753c1f495b@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 22:37:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20160624223616.GE3295@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-06/txt/msg00414.txt.bz2 On 06/24/2016 11:36 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> I haven't gone through this with fine-tooth comb yet, but, >> will we still have the same problem if _two_ threads (or inferiors...) >> fork at the "same" time, and we end up reporting one fork, while >> leaving the another one pending? > > At the moment, I do not think so, because we seem to just process > the fork even without requesting an update of the thread list. "catch fork" would make us stop though. Thanks, Pedro Alves