From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18850 invoked by alias); 1 Dec 2006 22:43:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 18838 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Dec 2006 22:43:41 -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; Fri, 01 Dec 2006 22:43:37 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.domain.tld (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2CB4BFF878; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 14:43:36 -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 26459-13-58; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 14:43:33 -0800 (PST) Received: from ussunex01.palmsource.com (unknown [192.168.101.9]) by mx2.palmsource.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57BF3101CE2; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 14:28:54 -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 ; Fri, 1 Dec 2006 22:28:54 +0000 Received: from svmsnyderlnx by owa.palmsource.com; 01 Dec 2006 14:28:53 -0800 Subject: Re: Single stepping and threads From: Michael Snyder To: Joel Brobecker Cc: gdb@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <20061130235515.GI3491@adacore.com> References: <20061129052942.GA16029@nevyn.them.org> <20061129055915.GM9968@adacore.com> <20061129132535.GA28834@nevyn.them.org> <20061129163844.GN9968@adacore.com> <1164929776.14460.36.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061130235515.GI3491@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 01 Dec 2006 22:43:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1165012133.2036.34.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: 2006-12/txt/msg00001.txt.bz2 On Thu, 2006-11-30 at 15:55 -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote: > > 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. > > Something just occured to me that was clear but maybe isn't. Is the > scheduling affected when you do a "continue"? I assumed that, if you > do a "run" or "continue", the actual scheduling policy is irrelevant, > and all threads are resumed. "Schedlock step" does not affect the continue behavior, but "schedlock on" does. With "on", no other thread can execute, period.