From: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@br.ibm.com>
To: Jim Blandy <jimb@red-bean.com>
Cc: Michael Snyder <msnyder@specifix.com>,
Jim Blandy <jimb@codesourcery.com>,
Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>,
gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Keeping breakpoints inserted
Date: Sun, 02 Dec 2007 18:38:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1196620597.6746.179.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8f2776cb0712010952y5330258akfe3086287f59ccb9@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 09:52 -0800, Jim Blandy wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2007 5:30 PM, Michael Snyder <msnyder@specifix.com> wrote:
> The original concern you raised was that non-stop debugging is "more
> intrusive than we already are". But clearly all-stop debugging on a
> live system is maximally intrusive to the system's users; non-stop
> debugging has the potential to be much less intrusive, when used with
> knowledge of the interactions between the system's threads.
There are cases when a developer will want to use non-stop debugging but
minimize change of relative timing of threads. Suppose that a developer
is trying to debug a deadlock situation in a program with 3 threads. A
and B are deadlocking, and C is a "supporting" thread without which the
other two can't run. He can't use all-stop debugging because while
inspecting A and B, C needs to be running. In this case, relative timing
of threads is important in order to have better chance at reproducing
the deadlock.
--
[]'s
Thiago Jung Bauermann
Software Engineer
IBM Linux Technology Center
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-12-02 18:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-29 19:24 Vladimir Prus
2007-11-30 1:25 ` Michael Snyder
2007-11-30 10:11 ` Vladimir Prus
2007-11-30 21:03 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2007-11-30 21:41 ` Michael Snyder
2007-12-01 0:08 ` Jim Blandy
2007-12-01 1:43 ` Michael Snyder
2007-12-01 17:52 ` Jim Blandy
2007-12-02 18:38 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann [this message]
2007-12-03 18:14 ` Jim Blandy
2007-11-30 23:53 ` Jim Blandy
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=1196620597.6746.179.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=bauerman@br.ibm.com \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=jimb@codesourcery.com \
--cc=jimb@red-bean.com \
--cc=msnyder@specifix.com \
--cc=vladimir@codesourcery.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