From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1271 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2006 23:36:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 1263 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Nov 2006 23:36:24 -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 23:36:19 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.domain.tld (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49DB3103D70; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:36:18 -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 18432-10-61; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:36:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from ussunex01.palmsource.com (unknown [192.168.101.9]) by mx2.palmsource.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48DBC103D6A; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:36:17 -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 23:36:17 +0000 Received: from svmsnyderlnx by owa.palmsource.com; 30 Nov 2006 15:36:16 -0800 Subject: Re: Single stepping and threads From: Michael Snyder To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20061129163844.GN9968@adacore.com> References: <20061129052942.GA16029@nevyn.them.org> <20061129055915.GM9968@adacore.com> <20061129132535.GA28834@nevyn.them.org> <20061129163844.GN9968@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:36:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1164929776.14460.36.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/msg00256.txt.bz2 On Wed, 2006-11-29 at 08:38 -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > > 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? > > Oops, sorry, I meant "no". > > One of my coworkers expressed his opinion as follow: > > << > I would find it confusing if "step" and "next" behave differently with > respect to threads, because they seem like basically the same thing. > "Next is just like step, except that it goes over calls" seems simple to > me. "Next is just like step, except that it goes over calls, and has > some subtle difference regarding threads" seems more complicated to me. > > So I would suggest leaving the default as "off", or else changing it > to "on". Default on would be a disaster -- most threaded programs would not behave even remotely the same under the debugger as they would solo. In fact, many would deadlock almost immediately.