Re: RFA: lin-lwp bug with software-single-step or schedlock

[Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at redhat dot com>]

> This bug was noticed on MIPS, because MIPS GNU/Linux is
> SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP_P.  There's a comment in lin_lwp_resume:
>
>   /* Apparently the interpretation of PID is dependent on STEP: If
>      STEP is non-zero, a specific PID means `step only this process
>      id'.  But if STEP is zero, then PID means `continue *all*
>      processes, but give the signal only to this one'.  */
>   resume_all = (PIDGET (ptid) == -1) || !step;
>
> Now, I did some digging, and I believe this comment is completely incorrect. 
> Saying "signal SIGWINCH" causes PIDGET (ptid) == -1, and it is assumed the
> signal will be delivered to inferior_ptid.  There's some other problem there
> - I think I've discovered that we will neglect to single-step over a
> breakpoint if we are told to continue with a signal, which is a bit dubious
> of a decision - but by and large it works as expected.
>
> So if STEP is 0, we always resume all processes.  STEP at this point _only_
> refers to whether we want a PTRACE_SINGLESTEP or equivalent;
> SOFTWARE_SINGLE_STEP has already been handled.  We can't make policy
> decisions based on STEP any more.
>
> I tried removing the || !step.  It's pretty hard to tell, since there are
> still a few non-deterministic failures on my test systems (which is what I
> was actually hunting when I found this!) but I believe testsuite results are
> improved on i386.  One run of just the thread tests (after the patch in my
> last message, which I've committed), shows that these all got fixed:
Shouldn't, per the remote.c Hg discussion, the code be changed so that 
lin_lwp_resume() has complete information and, hence, can correctly 
determine if resume all/one is needed.

Andrew