Re: Single stepping and threads

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

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.  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.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery