This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org 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: [PATCH] Fix usage of inferior_ptid in two thread_alive implementations


On 2017-02-09 15:46, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
Cc: Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@ericsson.com>, gdb-patches@sourceware.org
From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 17:53:16 +0000

On 02/09/2017 04:46 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
> On 2017-02-08 07:40, Pedro Alves wrote:
>> On 02/07/2017 09:24 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
>>> While inspecting some target code, I noticed that in these two
>>> implementations of thread_alive, inferior_ptid is referenced directly
>>> instead of using the ptid passed as parameters.  I guess that it is
>>> wrong, although I can't really test it in both cases.
>>
>> I can't test either, but it looks right to me.
>
> Soooo.. is this an approval :) ?

OK by the end of the week to give a chance of area
maintainers or interested folks to comment.  E.g., Eli
is the go32-nat.c maintainer and I don't mean to overstep,
though that bit does look obvious to me.

Is that function even called in the go32 port?

Why wouldn't it?  For example, you could have this pseudo-stack:

#0 go32_thread_alive
#1 target_thread_alive
#2 thread_alive
#3 thread_apply_all_command

If this target doesn't support multiple threads, it's possible that inferior_ptid will always be equal to ptid (equal to the only existing thread). But still it would be "more correct" to read the parameter instead of the global, IMO.

Simon


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