This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Fix foll-fork.exp foll-vfork.exp fork-child-threads.exp
- From: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
- To: "Ulrich Weigand" <uweigand at de dot ibm dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:15:07 +0000
- Subject: Re: Fix foll-fork.exp foll-vfork.exp fork-child-threads.exp
- References: <200811201824.mAKIORtZ014998@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com>
On Thursday 20 November 2008 18:24:27, Ulrich Weigand wrote:
> 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 ...
Hmmm, right, good point. I agree.