This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Inadvertently run inferior threads
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb at sourceware dot org
- Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 20:21:18 +0300
- Subject: Re: Inadvertently run inferior threads
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <83h9tq3zu3 dot fsf at gnu dot org> <55043A63 dot 6020103 at redhat dot com> <8361a339xd dot fsf at gnu dot org> <5504555C dot 804 at redhat dot com> <550458E0 dot 10206 at redhat dot com> <83y4jrsgui dot fsf at gnu dot org> <557ECCA5 dot 7050506 at redhat dot com> <83vbepngxm dot fsf at gnu dot org> <557EEF0E dot 1040400 at redhat dot com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> Date: Mon, 15 Jun 2015 16:28:14 +0100
> From: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
> CC: gdb@sourceware.org
>
> >> So that should mean that even for GNU/Linux, it should be possible
> >> to end in the exact same, when any thread other than the one that we
> >> had started the infcall in reports an event that doesn't cause a stop.
> >> E.g., a thread specific breakpoint, a "handle nostop" signal, etc.
> >
> > Does that involve minus_one_ptid on GNU/Linux as well? If not, that
> > call will not mark all threads as running, will it?
>
> It does. user_visible_resume_ptid returns the same irrespective
> of target_can_async.
Then how come your test program ended up showing just that additional
thread running? You even said you couldn't explain why I saw all my
threads running on Windows.