From: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>
To: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org,
"Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand@de.ibm.com>,
Jan Kratochvil <jkratoch@redhat.com>
Subject: Multi-exec patches (Was: [rfc] Infrastructure to disable breakpoints during inferior startup)
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 23:32:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m3iqhhog41.fsf_-_@fleche.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <m3my6tohy0.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> (Tom Tromey's message of "Fri\, 24 Jul 2009 16\:05\:27 -0600")
>>>>> "Tom" == Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com> writes:
Tom> I still haven't actually tried it, but I hope to do so soon.
I tried it a little.
I can't remember ... should this all work ok on x86 Linux? I thought
yes, hence this report, but if not, feel free to just let me know and
ignore all this.
Most of what I've written here seems familiar. I assume I read it all
in earlier notes of yours :-)
The first thing I noticed is that the new features are off by default.
I had to:
set schedule-multiple on
set detach-on-fork off
to get it to work. Having it disabled by default is ok as long as it is
a "technology preview", but if we think it is very solid then I think we
should enable it by default.
Having to set 2 options is obscure. I suppose I didn't really need to
set both, except my first attempt was to run "make", which tripped over
the vfork problem.
I put a gcc I built into my $PATH. Then I did:
$ cd gdbserver
$ ../gdb make
Then I tried various things.
"run clean" worked ok! That was cool!
Then I exited gdb and restarted it and tried a plain "run". This gave
me:
(gdb) set schedule-multiple on
(gdb) set detach-on-fork off
(gdb) run
Starting program: /usr/bin/make
(no debugging symbols found)
(no debugging symbols found)
(no debugging symbols found)
[New process 3931]
process 3931 is executing new program: /bin/true
(no debugging symbols found)
(no debugging symbols found)
(no debugging symbols found)
Program exited normally.
... which is a little odd, since no build was done.
And, what's with process 3931 executing /bin/true?
Am I not debugging the 'make' process?
A minor nit: I think "is executing a new program" would read better.
Then I did "run clean":
(gdb) run clean
Starting program: /bin/true clean
(no debugging symbols found)
(no debugging symbols found)
gcc -c -Wall -g3 -I. -I../../../archer/gdb/gdbserver -I../../../archer/gdb/gdbserver/../common -I../../../archer/gdb/gdbserver/../regformats -I../../../archer/gdb/gdbserver/../../include ../../../archer/gdb/gdbserver/regcache.c
Here, for some reason, the compile started. And, gdb forgot that I was
looking at "make" and ran /bin/true.
At this point, gdb hangs and cannot be interrupted. I kill -9'd it.
If I do the above but remember "file /usr/bin/make", gdb starts make
again ok and the compile starts. But, gdb hangs again as above.
This hang occurs often enough that I couldn't get to other tests, like
trying to set a breakpoint that would only trigger in cc1.
Those "(no debugging symbols found)" messages made me want Doug's patch
more ;)
Note that it is entirely possible that the patch applied strangely and I
introduced some bug that way. Or, maybe there is some other pilot
error.
Tom
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-07-24 22:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-07-22 17:14 [rfc] Infrastructure to disable breakpoints during inferior startup Ulrich Weigand
2009-07-22 20:32 ` Tom Tromey
2009-07-23 15:49 ` Ulrich Weigand
2009-07-23 16:51 ` Tom Tromey
2009-07-23 18:06 ` Ulrich Weigand
2009-07-23 18:57 ` Pedro Alves
2009-07-24 22:49 ` Tom Tromey
2009-07-24 23:32 ` Tom Tromey [this message]
2009-07-25 16:05 ` Multi-exec patches (Was: [rfc] Infrastructure to disable breakpoints during inferior startup) Pedro Alves
2009-07-25 19:31 ` Pedro Alves
2009-07-27 17:39 ` Multi-exec patches Tom Tromey
2009-07-27 18:45 ` Tom Tromey
2009-07-28 14:28 ` Pedro Alves
2009-07-29 22:03 ` Tom Tromey
2009-07-31 15:45 ` [rfc] Infrastructure to disable breakpoints during inferior startup Ulrich Weigand
2009-08-03 3:07 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2009-08-03 18:13 ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-08-05 18:14 ` Ulrich Weigand
2009-08-05 18:58 ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-08-06 17:46 ` Tom Tromey
2009-08-06 18:42 ` Eli Zaretskii
2009-08-06 19:12 ` Michael Snyder
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=m3iqhhog41.fsf_-_@fleche.redhat.com \
--to=tromey@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=jkratoch@redhat.com \
--cc=pedro@codesourcery.com \
--cc=uweigand@de.ibm.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox