From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1949 invoked by alias); 29 Nov 2006 16:38:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 1887 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Nov 2006 16:38:37 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nile.gnat.com (HELO nile.gnat.com) (205.232.38.5) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:38:20 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EFFF48CC4D for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:38:18 -0500 (EST) Received: from nile.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (nile.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 07032-01-5 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:38:17 -0500 (EST) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (unknown [70.71.0.212]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C6AD948CC09 for ; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 11:38:17 -0500 (EST) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id DABD634C099; Wed, 29 Nov 2006 08:38:44 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 16:38:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Single stepping and threads Message-ID: <20061129163844.GN9968@adacore.com> References: <20061129052942.GA16029@nevyn.them.org> <20061129055915.GM9968@adacore.com> <20061129132535.GA28834@nevyn.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20061129132535.GA28834@nevyn.them.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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/msg00232.txt.bz2 > > 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? Oops, sorry, I meant "no". One of my coworkers expressed his opinion as follow: << I would find it confusing if "step" and "next" behave differently with respect to threads, because they seem like basically the same thing. "Next is just like step, except that it goes over calls" seems simple to me. "Next is just like step, except that it goes over calls, and has some subtle difference regarding threads" seems more complicated to me. So I would suggest leaving the default as "off", or else changing it to "on". >> -- Joel