This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: gdbserver
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at ges dot redhat dot com>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>,Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com,"Van Assche, Bart" <bart dot vanassche at sciatl dot com>
- Date: Mon, 02 Sep 2002 21:47:24 -0400
- Subject: Re: gdbserver
- References: <6703765BD7FDD411AB0900508BFCACD3017D106E@bnbeluimex01.barconet.com> <20020830222342.GA32278@nevyn.them.org> <3D70010F.EAE68958@redhat.com> <20020831022307.GA9974@nevyn.them.org>
On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 04:34:39PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> [Bart, please try this patch.]
>
> List folks,
>
> I think the time has come for generic_prepare_to_proceed to actually be
> used. The problem addressed by this patch is that PREPARE_TO_PROCEED
> is not a native-only macro (and not part of the target stack). So
> lin_lwp_prepare_to_proceed would be called when using gdbserver, and of
> course trap_ptid would be null_ptid or stale.
> generic_prepare_to_proceed works correctly for lin-lwp native
> debugging, and for remote debugging. This patch fixes an incorrect
> breakpoint hit after manually switching threads; i.e. the same
> breakpoint would be hit a second time. I'll try to write an
> independent test case.
>
> Patch look OK?
Of course, a simpler and less intrusive fix would be to simply
define PREPARE_TO_PROCEED as generic_prepare_to_proceed, and
remove lin_lwp_prepare_to_proceed.
Yes (well using set_gdbarch_prepare_to_proceed() :-). Hmm, things to do
for someone --- add a linux-tdep.c file?
I'm not necessarily objecting to this patch -- just pointing
out an alternative. If people think we're ready for this step,
it's fine with me.
I think we're ready, but let's wait and see. For any non-threaded
target generic_prepare_to_proceed won't do any harm, since it checks
inferior_ptid != resume_ptid; for threaded targets, some version of
this function must be better than none.
Post branch, the whole lot can probably be ripped out.
Andrew