This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
[review v2] infrun: handle already-exited threads when attempting to stop
- From: "Tankut Baris Aktemur (Code Review)" <gerrit at gnutoolchain-gerrit dot osci dot io>
- To: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Cc: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>, Luis Machado <luis dot machado at linaro dot org>
- Date: Wed, 8 Jan 2020 10:57:35 -0500
- Subject: [review v2] infrun: handle already-exited threads when attempting to stop
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <gerrit.1571405222000.I7cec98f40283773b79255d998511da434e9cd408@gnutoolchain-gerrit.osci.io>
- Reply-to: gnutoolchain-gerrit at osci dot io
Tankut Baris Aktemur has posted comments on this change.
Change URL: https://gnutoolchain-gerrit.osci.io/r/c/binutils-gdb/+/133
......................................................................
Patch Set 2:
(1 comment)
| --- gdb/infrun.c
| +++ gdb/infrun.c
| @@ -4494,7 +4509,19 @@ stop_all_threads (void)
| + if (ws.kind == TARGET_WAITKIND_THREAD_EXITED)
| + delete_thread (t);
| + else
| + {
| + /* TARGET_WAITKIND_EXITED or
| + TARGET_WAITKIND_SIGNALLED. */
| + /* Need to restore the context because
| + handle_inferior_exit switches it. */
| + scoped_restore_current_pspace_and_thread restore;
| + handle_inferior_exit (event_ptid, ws);
PS2, Line 4518:
> > The fix for this I think must be around leaving the TARGET_WAITKIND_EXITED/TARGET_WAITKIND_SIGNALLED
> event pending, so that it is processed later when we're out of the stop_all_threads loop and back to
> dequeuing the next event.
>
>
> I'd like to ask for your opinion on making the second exit event pending.
> One problem is, because the event has not been reported to the user yet,
> the user still thinks that the inferior is alive. So, after getting the
> prompt because of the first exit event, they may be tempted to do "info
> threads" or switch to the not-yet-reported-inferior and inspect its state.
> This triggers a query (e.g. of registers) on the process that is already
> gone. I tried the following scenario with the current master branch
> (the patch that I proposed was not applied):
Kindly pinging.
Thanks,
-Baris
| + }
| + }
| }
| else
| {
| thread_info *t = find_thread_ptid (event_ptid);
| if (t == NULL)
| t = add_thread (event_ptid);
|
--
Gerrit-Project: binutils-gdb
Gerrit-Branch: master
Gerrit-Change-Id: I7cec98f40283773b79255d998511da434e9cd408
Gerrit-Change-Number: 133
Gerrit-PatchSet: 2
Gerrit-Owner: Tankut Baris Aktemur <tankut.baris.aktemur@intel.com>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Luis Machado <luis.machado@linaro.org>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Gerrit-Reviewer: Tankut Baris Aktemur <tankut.baris.aktemur@intel.com>
Gerrit-Comment-Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2020 15:57:35 +0000
Gerrit-HasComments: Yes
Gerrit-Has-Labels: No
Comment-In-Reply-To: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Comment-In-Reply-To: Tankut Baris Aktemur <tankut.baris.aktemur@intel.com>
Gerrit-MessageType: comment