Re: Inadvertently run inferior threads

[Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>]

On 06/15/2015 04:13 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 14:01:25 +0100
>> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
>> CC: gdb@sourceware.org
>>
>>> 	  if (!tp->control.in_infcall)
>>> 	    set_running (user_visible_resume_ptid (user_step), 1);
>>>
>>> it winds up calling 'set_running', because the in_infcall flag is set
>>> on the thread that called the inferior function, not on the thread
>>> which was started and triggered TARGET_WAITKIND_SPURIOUS.
>>>
>>> So 'set_running' is called, and it is called with minus_one_ptid,
>>> which then has the effect of marking all the threads as running.
>>
>> So that should mean that even for GNU/Linux, it should be possible
>> to end in the exact same, when any thread other than the one that we
>> had started the infcall in reports an event that doesn't cause a stop.
>> E.g., a thread specific breakpoint, a "handle nostop" signal, etc.
> 
> Does that involve minus_one_ptid on GNU/Linux as well?  If not, that
> call will not mark all threads as running, will it?

It does.  user_visible_resume_ptid returns the same irrespective
of target_can_async.

Thanks,
Pedro Alves