This is the mail archive of the 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]

[PATCH] Don't set random_signal for single step breakpoint

I happen to see the code, and find the comments are out of date,
because single-step breakpoint is not transparent to the breakpoint
module.  If one thread hits another thread's single-step breakpoint,
random_signal should be zero.  IOW, if random_signal is one, the
thread shouldn't hit any single-step breakpoints.  This patch is to
remove this piece of code.


2016-09-26  Yao Qi  <>

	* infrun.c (handle_signal_stop): Don't set random_signal
	by ecs->hit_singlestep_breakpoint.
 gdb/infrun.c | 6 ------
 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)

diff --git a/gdb/infrun.c b/gdb/infrun.c
index 648e2b6..b133f04 100644
--- a/gdb/infrun.c
+++ b/gdb/infrun.c
@@ -6056,12 +6056,6 @@ handle_signal_stop (struct execution_control_state *ecs)
     random_signal = !(ecs->event_thread->suspend.stop_signal == GDB_SIGNAL_TRAP
 		      && currently_stepping (ecs->event_thread));
-  /* Perhaps the thread hit a single-step breakpoint of _another_
-     thread.  Single-step breakpoints are transparent to the
-     breakpoints module.  */
-  if (random_signal)
-    random_signal = !ecs->hit_singlestep_breakpoint;
   /* No?  Perhaps we got a moribund watchpoint.  */
   if (random_signal)
     random_signal = !stopped_by_watchpoint;

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