From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 95793 invoked by alias); 23 Jun 2015 11:51:16 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 95779 invoked by uid 89); 23 Jun 2015 11:51:16 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:51:11 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C427E8EB3E; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:51:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t5NBp9Cv006577; Tue, 23 Jun 2015 07:51:10 -0400 Message-ID: <5589482C.7090906@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2015 11:51:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Eli Zaretskii CC: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Inadvertently run inferior threads References: <83h9tq3zu3.fsf@gnu.org> <55043A63.6020103@redhat.com> <8361a339xd.fsf@gnu.org> <5504555C.804@redhat.com> <550458E0.10206@redhat.com> <83y4jrsgui.fsf@gnu.org> <557ECCA5.7050506@redhat.com> <83vbepngxm.fsf@gnu.org> <557EEF0E.1040400@redhat.com> <83ioaoopkh.fsf@gnu.org> <557F11CE.907@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <557F11CE.907@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2015-06/txt/msg00066.txt.bz2 On 06/15/2015 06:56 PM, Pedro Alves wrote: > That's why I said: > ~~~ > 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. > ~~~ > > And I just confirmed it, with a thread-specific breakpoint that > trips on the wrong thread, thus, reporting a trap to the core, > which does not cause a user-visible stop, and then ends up > marking all threads running when we gdb internally re-resumes > the program. Like so: > (...) FYI, I've converted this to a proper testsuite test, and am playing with potential fixes. Thanks, Pedro Alves