Re: [PATCH v2] gdb/record-full: fix stop status when inferior isn't resumed

[Guinevere Larsen <guinevere@redhat.com>]

On 10/19/26 11:11 AM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> Guinevere Larsen <guinevere@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> The wait function for the record-full target has a check for whether
>> or not the inferior should be resumed. However, when we correctly
>> identified that it shouldn't be resumed, we incorrectly set the exit
>> status as "ignore", as though the inferior had resumed and had an
>> uninteresting stop.
>>
>> This would cause a problem when - for example - GDB has to wait for
>> all threads to actually be stopped, because we do that by waiting
>> until all threads have a wait status of "no_resumed", and the "ignore"
>> status would make us iterate over them and wait more.
>>
>> This commit fixes that by setting the status correctly to
>> not_resumed. The commit does not include a test because almost nothing
>> works with multi-threaded programs, and my upcoming series will
>> exercise this code path plenty of times, when testing it makes more
>> sense.
> Thanks for updating the commit message.  One tiny nit...
>
>> @@ -1187,8 +1187,8 @@ record_full_wait_1 (struct target_ops *ops,
>>       {
>>         gdb_assert ((options & TARGET_WNOHANG) != 0);
>>   
>> -      /* No interesting event.  */
>> -      status->set_ignore ();
>> +      /* No thread was reusmed at all.  */
> Typo: reusmed -> resumed
>
> With that fixed:
>
> Approved-By: Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>
Fixed the typo! thank you for the review, I've pushed the patch.
> Thanks,
> Andrew

-- 
Cheers,
Guinevere Larsen
it/its
she/her (deprecated)