RE: [PATCH 1/1] gdb, infrun: refactor part of `proceed` into separate function

["Schimpe, Christina" <christina.schimpe@intel.com>]

Hi Andrew, 

Thanks a lot for your feedback. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Burgess <aburgess@redhat.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 7, 2023 4:26 PM
> To: Schimpe, Christina <christina.schimpe@intel.com>; gdb-
> patches@sourceware.org
> Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/1] gdb, infrun: refactor part of `proceed` into separate
> function
> 
> Christina Schimpe via Gdb-patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org> writes:
> 
> > From: Mihails Strasuns <mihails.strasuns@intel.com>
> >
> > Split thread resuming block into separate function.
> > ---
> >  gdb/infrun.c | 119
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------------
> >  1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 59 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/gdb/infrun.c b/gdb/infrun.c index
> > 58da1cef29e..571cf29ef32 100644
> > --- a/gdb/infrun.c
> > +++ b/gdb/infrun.c
> > @@ -3268,6 +3268,63 @@ check_multi_target_resumption
> (process_stratum_target *resume_target)
> >      }
> >  }
> >
> > +/* Helper function for `proceed`, does bunch of checks to see
> > +   if a thread can be resumed right now, switches to that thread
> > +   and moves on to `keep_going_pass_signal`.  */
> 
> Function comments are suppose to mention the function arguments.  So I'd
> prefer something like:
> 
>   /* Helper function for `proceed`.  Check if thread TP is suitable for
>      resuming, and, if it is, switch to the thread and call
>      `keep_going_pass_signal`.  If TP is not suitable for resuming then
>      this function will just return without switching threads.  */
> 
> > +
> > +static void
> > +proceed_resume_thread_checked (thread_info *tp) {
> > +  if (!tp->inf->has_execution ())
> > +    {
> > +      infrun_debug_printf ("[%s] target has no execution",
> > +			   tp->ptid.to_string ().c_str ());
> > +      return;
> > +    }
> > +
> > +  if (tp->resumed ())
> > +    {
> > +      infrun_debug_printf ("[%s] resumed",
> > +			   tp->ptid.to_string ().c_str ());
> > +      gdb_assert (tp->executing () || tp->has_pending_waitstatus ());
> > +      return;
> > +    }
> > +
> > +  if (thread_is_in_step_over_chain (tp))
> > +    {
> > +      infrun_debug_printf ("[%s] needs step-over",
> > +			   tp->ptid.to_string ().c_str ());
> > +      return;
> > +    }
> > +
> > +  /* If a thread of that inferior is waiting for a vfork-done
> > +     (for a detached vfork child to exec or exit), breakpoints are
> > +     removed.  We must not resume any thread of that inferior, other
> > +     than the one waiting for the vfork-done.
> > +     In non-stop, forbid resuming a thread if some other thread of
> > +     that inferior is waiting for a vfork-done event (this means
> > +     breakpoints are out for this inferior).  */
> 
> It feels like there's duplication between the two parts of this comment now.
> I think you need to rewrite this as a single comment block that explains the
> new merged logic here.
> 

I agree with all your comments and will post a v2 asap.

Christina
Intel Deutschland GmbH
Registered Address: Am Campeon 10, 85579 Neubiberg, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 8853-0, www.intel.de <http://www.intel.de>
Managing Directors: Christin Eisenschmid, Sharon Heck, Tiffany Doon Silva  
Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
Registered Office: Munich
Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928