From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11615 invoked by alias); 2 Dec 2006 16:36:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 11606 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Dec 2006 16:36:35 -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; Sat, 02 Dec 2006 16:36:27 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 784FF48CE3A; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 11:36:25 -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 09478-02-6; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 11:36:25 -0500 (EST) Received: from takamaka.act-europe.fr (unknown [70.71.0.212]) by nile.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30EEA48CC25; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 11:36:25 -0500 (EST) Received: by takamaka.act-europe.fr (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 186D434C099; Sat, 2 Dec 2006 08:36:54 -0800 (PST) Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2006 16:36:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Rob Quill Cc: Michael Snyder , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Single stepping and threads Message-ID: <20061202163654.GS3304@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: 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: 2006-12/txt/msg00004.txt.bz2 > I fail to see how stopping all threads and just going forward with one > should stop "correct" code from executiong properly. Consider a rendez-vous, for instance. I'm not sure if a "rendez-vous" is a universal term or not, so I'll briefly explain what I mean: "rendez-vous" is used in Ada speak to represent a situation where one task is blocked waiting for another task to call one of its entries; neither task is allowed to run until both tasks reach the entry. Back to our question: If one of the tasks is not running, it cannot reach its entry, and thus the other task gets stuck on that entry call. -- Joel