From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16366 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2006 00:04:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 16358 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jan 2006 00:04:46 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Wed, 25 Jan 2006 00:04:39 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1F1Y9H-0008JB-Te; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 19:04:31 -0500 Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2006 11:20:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: "Nathan J. Williams" Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: vCont [was Re: Multithreaded debugging: strange thread switches] Message-ID: <20060125000431.GA31922@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: "Nathan J. Williams" , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200601231820.33372.ghost@cs.msu.su> <20060123155240.GA16524@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-01/txt/msg00249.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jan 24, 2006 at 06:34:38PM -0500, Nathan J. Williams wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > > This, generally, is part of the problem. If you want this to work, you > > need to implement the vCont packet in the stub. The Hc1 packet is > > supposed to mean "step only thread 1, leaving thread 2 stopped", and > > that's not what the gdb "next" command is supposed to map to - that's > > "step this thread but leave other threads free-running". > > Tangentially... I'm working on a stub for a system that doesn't have > hardware single-step; GDB knows that and doesn't try to issue any step > commands. However, the logic in remote.c that analyzes the response to > the vCont? packet refuses to use vCont unless it supports all of s, S, > c, and C. Is the best thing for my stub just to lie about supporting s > and S, and to rely on the knowledge that GDB won't try to use them? Yeah, I've been meaning to fix that. A better thing would be to modify GDB to accept a vCont packet that only indicated continue, and then issue an error if remote_resume tries to step. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery