This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [RFA] New threads test


Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 12:41:16PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 02:52:30PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:


On Wed, Oct 01, 2003 at 11:37:11AM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote:


Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:


This is a test for the remote protocol issue I'm solving with vCont.  It
also shows up in schedlock, but the simpler test makes it much clearer
what's going wrong.  OK?


Umm... what is going wrong? What are you testing for here?

+# It tests that the correct thread is single-stepped.


More intelligibly: when gdbserver is told to single-step one thread
(without holding all others schedlocked), it assumes we mean the first
thread.  Which might not be the _right_ thread.

Hmmm... it should assume we mean the _current_ thread (ie. the one that had a stop event). The remote protocol should cover this (and did, last I checked).


I could have changed gdbserver to default to that, in fact I thought I
had (but I hadn't). But it still breaks down if the user switches
threads explicitly -

Hmmm, that's what target_prepare_to_proceed is supposed to handle. Err... was. What happened to it? I missed this discussion, I guess.

>see vCont, which this is testing.

Can you refer me to the threads on vcont?  I've been seeing
references to it, but haven't found the origin or the definition.



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]