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]

Re: Single stepping and threads

On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 08:38:44AM -0800, Joel Brobecker wrote:
> One of my coworkers expressed his opinion as follow:
> <<
> I would find it confusing if "step" and "next" behave differently with
> respect to threads, because they seem like basically the same thing.
> "Next is just like step, except that it goes over calls" seems simple to
> me. "Next is just like step, except that it goes over calls, and has
> some subtle difference regarding threads" seems more complicated to me.
> So I would suggest leaving the default as "off", or else changing it
> to "on".
> >>

Fortunately, step and next would not behave differently.  It would
actually be more like this:

  When GDB advances the program by a small amount, a single instruction
  at a time, only the current thread runs.  When GDB advances the
  program by a large amount using a breakpoint, for instance to skip
  a function or a dynamic linker trampoline, other threads are allowed
  to run.

On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 03:44:14AM -0500, Robert Dewar wrote:
> There certainly are systems that do not support this. In any case I
> think it would be a very bad idea to change the default.

Why?  I am looking for reasons beyond inertia.

Daniel Jacobowitz

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