From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11423 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2010 20:09:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 11412 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Mar 2010 20:09:12 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from aussmtpmrkps320.us.dell.com (HELO aussmtpmrkps320.us.dell.com) (143.166.224.254) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:08:24 +0000 X-Loopcount0: from 12.110.134.31 Received: from unknown (HELO M31.equallogic.com) ([12.110.134.31]) by aussmtpmrkps320.us.dell.com with SMTP; 18 Mar 2010 15:08:22 -0500 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: RE: Two threads hitting the same break Date: Thu, 18 Mar 2010 20:09:00 -0000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: <201003181935.58045.pedro@codesourcery.com> From: "Paul Koning" To: "Pedro Alves" , X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2010-03/txt/msg00150.txt.bz2 Never mind, I misread a test. It looks like the Linux code does behave the way I want. Sorry for the confusion, and thanks for the help. paul > -----Original Message----- > From: gdb-owner@sourceware.org [mailto:gdb-owner@sourceware.org] On > Behalf Of Paul Koning > Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 4:02 PM > To: Pedro Alves; gdb@sourceware.org > Subject: RE: Two threads hitting the same break >=20 > Thanks. >=20 > I'm not sure about using that model -- it doesn't behave in an > intuitive > fashion. >=20 > If I have two threads that hit the same break at the same time, I would > expect to see both breaks. The Linux code tosses one of them. Given > how it picks threads to report, the next time the two threads hit a > break, the one that wasn't reported the first time will be reported > this > time. But the net result is that I only see a portion of the breaks -- > half of them if there are two threads. >=20 > Consider a test case of the form > - print something > - wait a bit > - repeat >=20 > If I set a break in that loop and keep hitting continue, I see one > break > per pass through the loop even if there are two threads executing this > loop. I'm not sure why the Linux folks chose to make it work that way; > I'm not sure I want to copy that behavior. >=20 > Then again, doing something more obvious might be hard... >=20 > paul >=20 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Pedro Alves [mailto:pedro@codesourcery.com] > > Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 3:36 PM > > To: gdb@sourceware.org > > Cc: Paul Koning > > Subject: Re: Two threads hitting the same break > > > > On Thursday 18 March 2010 19:26:52, Paul Koning wrote: > > > I think I've seen discussion of this sort of issue, possibly in the > > > code, but I'm not having much luck finding it. Any suggestions for > > the > > > right way to handle this? > > > > See linux-nat.c:cancel_breakpoint. > > > > -- > > Pedro Alves