Re: Fix foll-fork.exp foll-vfork.exp fork-child-threads.exp

["Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>]

Pedro Alves wrote:
> On Thursday 20 November 2008 16:36:58, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> > As a separate question, I'm wondering why this is the right place to
> > put the follow-fork logic anyway (and not in handle_inferior_event
> > like follow-exec ...).  Do you know the history of this?
> 
> To be able to decide if you want to follow a child or a parent
> when you catch a fork with "catch fork".

Ah, I see.  Makes sense.

However, even given that we need to do it in "resume" -- why so late
in resume, after e.g. displaced stepping or software single-step
was already set up?   For example, isn't singlestep_ptid set to the
wrong value if we later decide to follow the child?

It seems to me it would make more sense to have that decision come
*first* -- and then we could use the correct thread_info and regcache
etc. pointers throughout.  I guess there may have been a good reason
to place the call where it is, but I don't see it off-hand ...

Bye,
Ulrich

-- 
  Dr. Ulrich Weigand
  GNU Toolchain for Linux on System z and Cell BE
  Ulrich.Weigand@de.ibm.com