From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8898 invoked by alias); 20 Apr 2011 19:37:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 8880 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Apr 2011 19:37:28 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from imr4.ericy.com (HELO imr4.ericy.com) (198.24.6.8) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 19:37:12 +0000 Received: from eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) by imr4.ericy.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-9.1ubuntu1) with ESMTP id p3KJb9SM031797; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 14:37:11 -0500 Received: from EUSAACMS0703.eamcs.ericsson.se ([169.254.2.159]) by eusaamw0707.eamcs.ericsson.se ([147.117.20.32]) with mapi; Wed, 20 Apr 2011 15:37:08 -0400 From: Marc Khouzam To: "'Pedro Alves'" , "'gdb@sourceware.org'" Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 19:37:00 -0000 Subject: RE: Does multi-exec make sense without target-async? Message-ID: References: <201104202033.55140.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <201104202033.55140.pedro@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 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: 2011-04/txt/msg00126.txt.bz2 > -----Original Message----- > From: Pedro Alves [mailto:pedro@codesourcery.com]=20 > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 3:34 PM > To: gdb@sourceware.org > Cc: Marc Khouzam > Subject: Re: Does multi-exec make sense without target-async? >=20 > On Wednesday 20 April 2011 19:35:26, Marc Khouzam wrote: >=20 > > There is no point in running multi-exec without > > target-async on, right? > >=20 > > I mean, if I have two inferiors and I run one, > > there is no way for me to tell GDB to also > > run the second one? To do that, I have to=20 > > interrupt the first to get the prompt. > > I originally thought of using 'continue -a' > > to resume all inferiors, but the -a flag > > is only for non-stop it seems. >=20 > Yeah, GDB's internal all-stop model is not a good > fit for multi-process. You either resume just > all threads of a process, or all threads of all > processes. It's controlled by this setting in all-stop mode: >=20 > (gdb) help set schedule-multiple=20 > Set mode for resuming threads of all processes. > When on, execution commands (such as 'continue' or 'next') resume all > threads of all processes. When off (which is the default), execution > commands only resume the threads of the current process. The set of > threads that are resumed is further refined by the scheduler-locking > mode (see help set scheduler-locking). >=20 > Note, the setting applies to _all_ execution commands, like > scheduler-locking. Thanks! Looks like I want that option 'on', to give some kind of value to all-stop mode. I'll give it a go.