From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32661 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2006 23:32:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 32645 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Nov 2006 23:32:55 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.palmsource.com (HELO mx2.palmsource.com) (12.7.175.14) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:32:47 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.domain.tld (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7E53103DBD; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:32:45 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx2.palmsource.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx2.palmsource.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 17575-07-95; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:32:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from ussunex01.palmsource.com (unknown [192.168.101.9]) by mx2.palmsource.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 514D5103DDC; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:32:40 -0800 (PST) Received: from 192.168.92.189 ([192.168.92.189]) by ussunex01.palmsource.com ([192.168.101.9]) via Exchange Front-End Server owa.palmsource.com ([10.0.20.17]) with Microsoft Exchange Server HTTP-DAV ; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:32:40 +0000 Received: from svmsnyderlnx by owa.palmsource.com; 30 Nov 2006 15:32:39 -0800 Subject: Re: Single stepping and threads From: Michael Snyder To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20061129132535.GA28834@nevyn.them.org> References: <20061129052942.GA16029@nevyn.them.org> <20061129055915.GM9968@adacore.com> <20061129132535.GA28834@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:32:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1164929559.14460.31.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.4.1 X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-11/txt/msg00255.txt.bz2 On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 08:25 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 09:59:15PM -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > > A related issue is the tendency of "step" to let other threads run even > > > in "set scheduler-locking step". For instance: > > [...] > > > - "step" acts like "next" when stepping over a function without debug > > > info. Should we honor "set scheduler-locking step" when doing > > > this? > > > > I would say yes. A step should be a few instructions, while stepping > > over a call is potentially a much larger number of instructions. > > As a result, stepping over without letting the other threads go would > > more likely cause a lock. > > I think you mean "no" then? > > > PS: My understanding is that not all systems support the running > > of an individual thread instead of the entire program. Is that > > right? Or do all systems support this feature? > > I'm really not sure. Not all systems support the "set scheduler-locking" command. There is a target-vector element that tells gdb whether the command is implemented or not. If it isn't implemented, failure will be "clean". > I assume there were systems that didn't support > it when it was added; there are probably some still, but I don't know > any personally. grep for tc_schedlock, which is only mentioned in linux-nat.c, procfs.c, and remote.c. I believe remote.c probes the target to find out if it can support schedlock.