From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31904 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2006 23:31:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 31895 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Nov 2006 23:31:21 -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; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:31:12 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F31C148CC32; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:31:09 -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 25208-01-3; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:31:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (S0106000f3d96cb6d.vc.shawcable.net [24.84.195.170]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AF2A148CBC6; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:31:09 -0500 (EST) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id B63A434C099; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:31:37 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:31:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Michael Snyder Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Single stepping and threads Message-ID: <20061130233137.GG3491@adacore.com> References: <20061129052942.GA16029@nevyn.them.org> <20061129055915.GM9968@adacore.com> <1164929172.14460.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1164929172.14460.26.camel@localhost.localdomain> 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/msg00254.txt.bz2 > That's correct. GDB is unavoidably intrusive when it comes to > thread scheduling. The default behavior ("off"), is the least > intrusive, and somewhat randomly, unpredictably intrusive. > > "Step" would be more intrusive, and non-randomly so. It will > cause the "current" thread to be strongly preferred, and other > threads will probably starve. > > "On" is the most intrusive -- no other threads can run, and > if there are any synchronization issues, the program will > eventually deadlock. I personally am a big fan of "on", btw. Your points make me like it even more... -- Joel