From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A6FBD3858D20 for ; Fri, 17 May 2024 23:24:31 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org A6FBD3858D20 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com ARC-Filter: OpenARC Filter v1.0.0 sourceware.org A6FBD3858D20 Authentication-Results: server2.sourceware.org; arc=none smtp.remote-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1715988273; cv=none; b=FVAd32/Lmv7/Y8+pYPRygl60XGtHA7LHqCvAwGbHgYAOG5acurw7hUhu1QC4rn7Wtrbw5MBK7NRUBPy83/hbVdTjjNsvoEE+KkHsG3dCmmp786E4aGyrXjDMGQs4vS8AJsg79vIJQu+AroFrOzwy7u37P/z6CVUFyc3hPzYOIvU= ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=sourceware.org; s=key; t=1715988273; c=relaxed/simple; bh=wRBmpM08hFrTtD6V+tlZVcnuonJTIVQGHEhi8Br7Lqc=; h=DKIM-Signature:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=JbJL2eBSNPvAtSoBp20is0rxa0JF0NfWfXFjMKTlc/TKhqTYJNLZMpp+r1a/1iWqKLnrFNRvDMddbPQwkikjmLZQz1MsaBb5Krln4XTQAHk9K1t+4J/vO7mvqkjgnxSzd47TZrn1omuE5SineS+tj4SUCVGQioV41xG3yWLrxvI= ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; server2.sourceware.org DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1715988271; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=fLlpJ+C2gk6Hxj0Y31OMcAi/Z00NsN0U+rSlLDVb4/0=; b=FS+cpDh8VmkZnHASoCJe2LWze9kgQ0Dx31rxbajV/0Uq9+Mgwm7v9nEXoSqTCWf7pFkjj2 lTXZd1I9/7CN6j/r+TluJcUsBJNqobOBhv6hsW0qv1L9i5Ouj1HlVf8WdwyCO5R0++4Y4U dYV4gPbZY/ZH2twG+yYFvRy9SvTesS4= Received: from mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (mimecast-mx02.redhat.com [66.187.233.88]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-519-HInTdeFwOmSAshM17cepZA-1; Fri, 17 May 2024 19:24:29 -0400 X-MC-Unique: HInTdeFwOmSAshM17cepZA-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.10]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx02.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 999A0101A525; Fri, 17 May 2024 23:24:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from f40-zbm-amd (unknown [10.22.8.28]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 55339491032; Fri, 17 May 2024 23:24:29 +0000 (UTC) Date: Fri, 17 May 2024 16:24:27 -0700 From: Kevin Buettner To: Ciaran Woodward Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PING 5][PATCH] gdb: Fix missing first breakpoint in schedule-multiple mode Message-ID: <20240517162427.3234278b@f40-zbm-amd> In-Reply-To: References: <20220725162231.4473-1-ciaranwoodward@xmos.com> Organization: Red Hat MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.11.54.10 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Hi Ciaran, On Fri, 17 May 2024 15:18:13 +0000 Ciaran Woodward wrote: > Ping again - this (or something similar) is required for working with multiple inferiors on a remote if > you connect to the remote while the inferiors are already running. > > There is a reproduction description here: https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2022-July/191092.html > > I was reminded of this from some discussion in IRC > > (I include the original message below since it is such an old patch) > > Would it be helpful for me to write a test for this? I have a reproduction example in the linked archive, > but it requires running gdbserver twice and I'm not at all familiar with the test system. Is it feasible? I applied (via "git am") your patch from 2022. While applying it, git complained about the following whitespace problems: Applying: gdb: Fix missing first breakpoint in schedule-multiple mode /mesquite2/sourceware-git/binutils-gdb/.git/worktrees/worktree-review/rebase-apply/patch:15: indent with spaces. inferior->control.stop_soon = NO_STOP_QUIETLY; /mesquite2/sourceware-git/binutils-gdb/.git/worktrees/worktree-review/rebase-apply/patch:30: indent with spaces. the current thread. */ warning: 2 lines add whitespace errors. But, those nits aside, I was able to do a build with your patch and used your reproducer to verify that the problem still exists in current GDB and also that your patch fixes that problem. Using the information you've provided, I think it should be possible to write a gdb test. It would definitely be appreciated! Skimming your patch, it looks reasonable to me, but I haven't really studied it yet. I'll give it a closer look and do some more testing as well... Kevin