From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27926 invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2006 13:25:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 27911 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Nov 2006 13:25:52 -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, 29 Nov 2006 13:25:38 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GpPRQ-0007Vh-8o for gdb@sourceware.org; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 08:25:36 -0500 Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 13:25:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Single stepping and threads Message-ID: <20061129132535.GA28834@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sourceware.org References: <20061129052942.GA16029@nevyn.them.org> <20061129055915.GM9968@adacore.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061129055915.GM9968@adacore.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11) 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/msg00219.txt.bz2 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