From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10692 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2006 23:54:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 10683 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Nov 2006 23:54:54 -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 23:54:49 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ACD4048CED1; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:54:47 -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 05414-01-7; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:54:47 -0500 (EST) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (S0106000f3d96cb6d.vc.shawcable.net [24.84.195.170]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6CBDF48CE90; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 18:54:47 -0500 (EST) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 3A1E934C099; Thu, 30 Nov 2006 15:55:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2006 23:54:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Michael Snyder Cc: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Single stepping and threads Message-ID: <20061130235515.GI3491@adacore.com> References: <20061129052942.GA16029@nevyn.them.org> <20061129055915.GM9968@adacore.com> <20061129132535.GA28834@nevyn.them.org> <20061129163844.GN9968@adacore.com> <1164929776.14460.36.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1164929776.14460.36.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/msg00258.txt.bz2 > Default on would be a disaster -- most threaded programs would > not behave even remotely the same under the debugger as they would > solo. > > In fact, many would deadlock almost immediately. Something just occured to me that was clear but maybe isn't. Is the scheduling affected when you do a "continue"? I assumed that, if you do a "run" or "continue", the actual scheduling policy is irrelevant, and all threads are resumed. -- Joel