From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 113447 invoked by alias); 1 Nov 2019 14:54:48 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 113437 invoked by uid 89); 1 Nov 2019 14:54:47 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-8.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 spammy= X-HELO: gateway24.websitewelcome.com Received: from gateway24.websitewelcome.com (HELO gateway24.websitewelcome.com) (192.185.51.209) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 14:54:46 +0000 Received: from cm12.websitewelcome.com (cm12.websitewelcome.com [100.42.49.8]) by gateway24.websitewelcome.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ADF5CF98 for ; Fri, 1 Nov 2019 09:54:45 -0500 (CDT) Received: from box5379.bluehost.com ([162.241.216.53]) by cmsmtp with SMTP id QYK5inhJeW4frQYK5iHpCf; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 09:54:45 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tromey.com; s=default; h=Content-Type:MIME-Version:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:Date: References:Subject:Cc:To:From:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=sA2UUCzENea6I4i9FziftTS8VATTw8P0GVavtTDZLs0=; b=StYDxT+2Pr46KzsIzSOvYU1I/q y5LRab4f19giM6PK4eajoPNZkEJHyPAXxjwsNGHptt00VI/7hshq+R+sym4Zxh7kQDTsNzvkLr+CX lnIpP+7wEeRmbe0KWy0BcfH/1; Received: from 75-166-66-104.hlrn.qwest.net ([75.166.66.104]:56398 helo=murgatroyd) by box5379.bluehost.com with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1iQYK4-003Cxt-Pk; Fri, 01 Nov 2019 08:54:44 -0600 From: Tom Tromey To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 02/24] Don't rely on inferior_ptid in record_full_wait References: <20191017225026.30496-1-palves@redhat.com> <20191017225026.30496-3-palves@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2019 14:54:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <20191017225026.30496-3-palves@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Thu, 17 Oct 2019 23:50:04 +0100") Message-ID: <8736f74pfw.fsf@tromey.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2019-11/txt/msg00026.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro> The multi-target patch sets inferior_ptid to null_ptid before handling Pedro> a target event, and thus before calling target_wait, in order to catch Pedro> places in target_ops::wait implementations that are incorrectly Pedro> relying on inferior_ptid (which could otherwise be a ptid of a Pedro> different target, for example). I think it would be good to add a comment before target_ops::wait explaining what is required from its implementation. If other target_ops methods also cannot rely on inferior_ptid, then that documentation should be updated as well. This would make it simpler to know how to update an existing target, or to write a new target. Tom