From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14375 invoked by alias); 18 Jun 2010 14:09:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 14210 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jun 2010 14:09:54 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-5.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:09:46 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o5IE9dAc023010 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:09:39 -0400 Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o5IE9bLI008557 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 18 Jun 2010 10:09:39 -0400 Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id o5IE9b85025269; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:09:37 +0200 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) id o5IE9afN025268; Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:09:36 +0200 Date: Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:09:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Stan Shebs Subject: Re: [patch 3/3] bpstat_what removal [rediff] Message-ID: <20100618140936.GA24028@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> References: <20100503200217.GD30386@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <201006162013.31064.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20100618104129.GA11850@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <201006181242.30972.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201006181242.30972.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-12-10) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-06/txt/msg00405.txt.bz2 On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 13:42:30 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: > There are code paths in handle_inferior_event that _want_ to resume until > a breakpoint is rehit, related to (nested) signals. Not sure they apply in > this case, I/We'll need to dig further. (another reason for wanting to have > that change separated). That is very surprising to me, so far I have considered such re-hits as clearly a bug in handle_inferior_event, not considering other code may expect it. I agree now my patch went too far and it should be split (like you did). > > But former BPSTAT_WHAT_STEP_RESUME and BPSTAT_WHAT_SET_LONGJMP_RESUME > > (therefore those using `keep_going (ecs); return;' make a mess there as they > > cancel lower priorities wanting to stop. > > Well, not cancel, but postpone. Without of possibility getting some event lost? (watchpoints come to my mind) Not important now as I see there is an approved plan to remove it anyway. > I have trouble thinking how you'd have a simultaneous > BPSTAT_WHAT_STEP_RESUME along with an solib or jit event, but, There is missing and planned "new invisible breakpoints, with Python code attached" stated in: Tom Tromey: Re: [patch 3/3] bpstat_what removal [rediff] http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2010-06/msg00376.html which can happen for (after re-hits start to be prevented): call_func_without_debuginfo (); line_with_python_invisible_breakpoint; > let's put thread event breakpoints and other kind of event breakpoints we'll > come up with, or even gdb side tracepoints in the mix. I assume you mean the case I have described now above. > All these breakpoints have the property that you do want to > avoid considering rehits introduced by these "spurious" resumes as separate > hits. Easier to think about if you consider tracepoints (you'd have double, > or more collects for the same tracepoint hit), and that does indeed suggest > something needs to change. Great there is approval of this intention of re-hits removal. > The goal was getting the table our of the way, which is supposedly > a non-behaviour (almost mechanical actually) change, so we can concentrate > on the interface and infrun issues. OK, true the table itself is currently the most obvious pain. > > This violates the goal of my patch to make its reviewing easier by not > > changing the behavior in any way for the cases only a single event happens. > > (while making it hard to review because it changes the behavior when > multiple breakpoints happen :-) ) ... as the (IMO) "obviously broken behavior" is expected by the current code. Thanks, Jan