This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch] Fix stale tp->step_resume_breakpoint
- From: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
- To: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Cc: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 01:05:18 +0000
- Subject: Re: [patch] Fix stale tp->step_resume_breakpoint
- References: <20101102004301.GA7972@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>
On Tuesday 02 November 2010 00:43:01, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> A comment is welcome but it seems safe to me.
I think this raises an obvious question, and hints at
a larger issue: if you find you you need to tuck away step_resume_breakpoint,
then, how come you don't need to do the same for all the other execution
command state? (step_range_start, step_range_end, step_frame_id,
continuations, etc.).
I'd assume that in the use case you trip on step_resume_breakpoint
troubles, you'd also be losing thread stepping state (or state
for any other execution command), thus your thread would end up
running free, forgetting about the previous command that was
going on before the infcall. Is that not the case?
--
Pedro Alves