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] |
On 12/28/2016 11:37 AM, John Baldwin wrote:
On Wednesday, December 28, 2016 09:07:07 AM Vasil Dimov wrote:On Tue, Dec 27, 2016 at 13:03:27 -0800, John Baldwin wrote: [...]I have tried changing fbsd_wait() to return a TARGET_WAITKIND_SPURIOUS instead of explicitly continuing the process, but that doesn't help, and it means that the ptid being returned is still T1 in that case. I'm not sure if I should explicitly be calling delete_exited_threads() in fbsd_resume() before calling iterate_threads()? Alternatively, fbsd_resume() could use ALL_NONEXITED_THREADS() instead of iterate_threads() (it isn't clear to me which of these is preferred since both are in use). I added the assertion for my own sanity. I suspect gdb should never try to invoke target_resume() with a ptid of an exited thread, but if for some reason it did the effect on FreeBSD would be a hang since we would suspend all the other threads and when the process was continued via PT_CONTINUE it would have nothing to do and would never return from wait(). I'd rather have gdb fail an assertion in that case rather than hang.[...] Hi, I am not sure if this is related, but since I get a hang I would rather mention it: with the John's patch (including the assert) gdb does not emit the "ptrace: No such process" error, but when I attempt to quit, it hangs:No, this is a separate bug in the kernel whereby a process doesn't treat PT_KILL as a detach-like event but incorrectly expects to keep getting PT_CONTINUE events for a while until it finally exits. I'm working on writing up regression/unit tests for PT_KILL and then fixing the bug.
I think the patch is mainly papering over a bigger problem. My guess is that the native fbsd backend is not doing something it should.
I'd check how linux-nat.c is doing things and then try to confirm the fbsd behavior is sane.
For example, i noticed linux-nat.c has exit_lwp (...) that handles deletion of both thread information and the thread itself (lwp). Even if it is the currently-selected thread, we *will* get the lwp removed from the list of existing lwp's.
It doesn't make sense to keep a thread that has already exitted in the list of threads we are manipulating.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |