[PATCH] waiting_for_stop_reply around remote_fileio_request

Pedro Alves palves@redhat.com
Thu Feb 4 13:55:00 GMT 2016


On 01/29/2016 10:49 AM, Yao Qi wrote:

> however, we did set rs->waiting_for_stop_reply to zero before Luis's
> patch https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2015-10/msg00336.html
> 
> In fact, Luis's patch v1
> https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2015-08/msg00809.html is about
> setting rs->waiting_for_stop_reply back to one after
> remote_fileio_request, which is correct.  However during the review, the
> patch is changed and ends up with "not setting rs->waiting_for_stop_reply
> to zero".

Whoops...

LGTM, with nits below.

> diff --git a/gdb/remote.c b/gdb/remote.c
> index d5701e3..f396a8f 100644
> --- a/gdb/remote.c
> +++ b/gdb/remote.c
> @@ -6994,8 +6994,16 @@ remote_wait_as (ptid_t ptid, struct target_waitstatus *status, int options)
>        status->value.sig = GDB_SIGNAL_0;
>        break;
>      case 'F':		/* File-I/O request.  */
> +      /* GDB may access the inferior memory while handling the File-I/O
> +	 request, but we don't want it GDB accessing memory while waiting

Either "want it", or "want GDB", instead of  "want it GDB".


>        remote_fileio_request (buf, rs->ctrlc_pending_p);
>        rs->ctrlc_pending_p = 0;
> +      /* GDB handled the File-I/O request, but the target is running
> +	 again.  Keep waiting for events.  */

s/but/and/.

> +      rs->waiting_for_stop_reply = 1;
>        break;
>      case 'N': case 'T': case 'S': case 'X': case 'W':
>        {


Thanks,
Pedro Alves



More information about the Gdb-patches mailing list