* [PATCH v2] PR threads/20743: Don't attempt to suspend or resume exited threads.
@ 2017-04-04 17:33 John Baldwin
2017-04-11 18:43 ` John Baldwin
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: John Baldwin @ 2017-04-04 17:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches
When resuming a native FreeBSD process, ignore exited threads when
suspending/resuming individual threads prior to continuing the process.
gdb/ChangeLog:
PR threads/20743
* fbsd-nat.c (resume_one_thread_cb): Remove.
(resume_all_threads_cb): Remove.
(fbsd_resume): Use ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS instead of
iterate_over_threads.
---
gdb/ChangeLog | 8 ++++++++
gdb/fbsd-nat.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------------
2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gdb/ChangeLog b/gdb/ChangeLog
index fc8dbe18da..a1927f5e2e 100644
--- a/gdb/ChangeLog
+++ b/gdb/ChangeLog
@@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
+2017-04-04 John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
+
+ PR threads/20743
+ * fbsd-nat.c (resume_one_thread_cb): Remove.
+ (resume_all_threads_cb): Remove.
+ (fbsd_resume): Use ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS instead of
+ iterate_over_threads.
+
2017-04-04 Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>
* remote.c (set_general_thread, set_continue_thread): Use ptid_t
diff --git a/gdb/fbsd-nat.c b/gdb/fbsd-nat.c
index d99f436070..f80a47ba42 100644
--- a/gdb/fbsd-nat.c
+++ b/gdb/fbsd-nat.c
@@ -653,38 +653,6 @@ fbsd_next_vfork_done (void)
#endif
#endif
-static int
-resume_one_thread_cb (struct thread_info *tp, void *data)
-{
- ptid_t *ptid = (ptid_t *) data;
- int request;
-
- if (ptid_get_pid (tp->ptid) != ptid_get_pid (*ptid))
- return 0;
-
- if (ptid_get_lwp (tp->ptid) == ptid_get_lwp (*ptid))
- request = PT_RESUME;
- else
- request = PT_SUSPEND;
-
- if (ptrace (request, ptid_get_lwp (tp->ptid), NULL, 0) == -1)
- perror_with_name (("ptrace"));
- return 0;
-}
-
-static int
-resume_all_threads_cb (struct thread_info *tp, void *data)
-{
- ptid_t *filter = (ptid_t *) data;
-
- if (!ptid_match (tp->ptid, *filter))
- return 0;
-
- if (ptrace (PT_RESUME, ptid_get_lwp (tp->ptid), NULL, 0) == -1)
- perror_with_name (("ptrace"));
- return 0;
-}
-
/* Implement the "to_resume" target_ops method. */
static void
@@ -711,13 +679,37 @@ fbsd_resume (struct target_ops *ops,
if (ptid_lwp_p (ptid))
{
/* If ptid is a specific LWP, suspend all other LWPs in the process. */
- iterate_over_threads (resume_one_thread_cb, &ptid);
+ struct thread_info *tp;
+ int request;
+
+ ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS (tp)
+ {
+ if (ptid_get_pid (tp->ptid) != ptid_get_pid (ptid))
+ continue;
+
+ if (ptid_get_lwp (tp->ptid) == ptid_get_lwp (ptid))
+ request = PT_RESUME;
+ else
+ request = PT_SUSPEND;
+
+ if (ptrace (request, ptid_get_lwp (tp->ptid), NULL, 0) == -1)
+ perror_with_name (("ptrace"));
+ }
}
else
{
/* If ptid is a wildcard, resume all matching threads (they won't run
until the process is continued however). */
- iterate_over_threads (resume_all_threads_cb, &ptid);
+ struct thread_info *tp;
+
+ ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS (tp)
+ {
+ if (!ptid_match (tp->ptid, ptid))
+ continue;
+
+ if (ptrace (PT_RESUME, ptid_get_lwp (tp->ptid), NULL, 0) == -1)
+ perror_with_name (("ptrace"));
+ }
ptid = inferior_ptid;
}
super_resume (ops, ptid, step, signo);
--
2.11.0
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] PR threads/20743: Don't attempt to suspend or resume exited threads.
2017-04-04 17:33 [PATCH v2] PR threads/20743: Don't attempt to suspend or resume exited threads John Baldwin
@ 2017-04-11 18:43 ` John Baldwin
2017-04-12 18:12 ` Luis Machado
2017-04-18 11:33 ` Pedro Alves
2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: John Baldwin @ 2017-04-11 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches
Ping?
On Tuesday, April 04, 2017 10:32:58 AM John Baldwin wrote:
> When resuming a native FreeBSD process, ignore exited threads when
> suspending/resuming individual threads prior to continuing the process.
>
> gdb/ChangeLog:
>
> PR threads/20743
> * fbsd-nat.c (resume_one_thread_cb): Remove.
> (resume_all_threads_cb): Remove.
> (fbsd_resume): Use ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS instead of
> iterate_over_threads.
> ---
> gdb/ChangeLog | 8 ++++++++
> gdb/fbsd-nat.c | 60 +++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------------
> 2 files changed, 34 insertions(+), 34 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gdb/ChangeLog b/gdb/ChangeLog
> index fc8dbe18da..a1927f5e2e 100644
> --- a/gdb/ChangeLog
> +++ b/gdb/ChangeLog
> @@ -1,3 +1,11 @@
> +2017-04-04 John Baldwin <jhb@FreeBSD.org>
> +
> + PR threads/20743
> + * fbsd-nat.c (resume_one_thread_cb): Remove.
> + (resume_all_threads_cb): Remove.
> + (fbsd_resume): Use ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS instead of
> + iterate_over_threads.
> +
> 2017-04-04 Simon Marchi <simon.marchi@polymtl.ca>
>
> * remote.c (set_general_thread, set_continue_thread): Use ptid_t
> diff --git a/gdb/fbsd-nat.c b/gdb/fbsd-nat.c
> index d99f436070..f80a47ba42 100644
> --- a/gdb/fbsd-nat.c
> +++ b/gdb/fbsd-nat.c
> @@ -653,38 +653,6 @@ fbsd_next_vfork_done (void)
> #endif
> #endif
>
> -static int
> -resume_one_thread_cb (struct thread_info *tp, void *data)
> -{
> - ptid_t *ptid = (ptid_t *) data;
> - int request;
> -
> - if (ptid_get_pid (tp->ptid) != ptid_get_pid (*ptid))
> - return 0;
> -
> - if (ptid_get_lwp (tp->ptid) == ptid_get_lwp (*ptid))
> - request = PT_RESUME;
> - else
> - request = PT_SUSPEND;
> -
> - if (ptrace (request, ptid_get_lwp (tp->ptid), NULL, 0) == -1)
> - perror_with_name (("ptrace"));
> - return 0;
> -}
> -
> -static int
> -resume_all_threads_cb (struct thread_info *tp, void *data)
> -{
> - ptid_t *filter = (ptid_t *) data;
> -
> - if (!ptid_match (tp->ptid, *filter))
> - return 0;
> -
> - if (ptrace (PT_RESUME, ptid_get_lwp (tp->ptid), NULL, 0) == -1)
> - perror_with_name (("ptrace"));
> - return 0;
> -}
> -
> /* Implement the "to_resume" target_ops method. */
>
> static void
> @@ -711,13 +679,37 @@ fbsd_resume (struct target_ops *ops,
> if (ptid_lwp_p (ptid))
> {
> /* If ptid is a specific LWP, suspend all other LWPs in the process. */
> - iterate_over_threads (resume_one_thread_cb, &ptid);
> + struct thread_info *tp;
> + int request;
> +
> + ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS (tp)
> + {
> + if (ptid_get_pid (tp->ptid) != ptid_get_pid (ptid))
> + continue;
> +
> + if (ptid_get_lwp (tp->ptid) == ptid_get_lwp (ptid))
> + request = PT_RESUME;
> + else
> + request = PT_SUSPEND;
> +
> + if (ptrace (request, ptid_get_lwp (tp->ptid), NULL, 0) == -1)
> + perror_with_name (("ptrace"));
> + }
> }
> else
> {
> /* If ptid is a wildcard, resume all matching threads (they won't run
> until the process is continued however). */
> - iterate_over_threads (resume_all_threads_cb, &ptid);
> + struct thread_info *tp;
> +
> + ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS (tp)
> + {
> + if (!ptid_match (tp->ptid, ptid))
> + continue;
> +
> + if (ptrace (PT_RESUME, ptid_get_lwp (tp->ptid), NULL, 0) == -1)
> + perror_with_name (("ptrace"));
> + }
> ptid = inferior_ptid;
> }
> super_resume (ops, ptid, step, signo);
>
--
John Baldwin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] PR threads/20743: Don't attempt to suspend or resume exited threads.
2017-04-04 17:33 [PATCH v2] PR threads/20743: Don't attempt to suspend or resume exited threads John Baldwin
2017-04-11 18:43 ` John Baldwin
@ 2017-04-12 18:12 ` Luis Machado
2017-04-14 22:40 ` John Baldwin
2017-04-18 11:33 ` Pedro Alves
2 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Luis Machado @ 2017-04-12 18:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Baldwin, gdb-patches
On 04/04/2017 12:32 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> When resuming a native FreeBSD process, ignore exited threads when
> suspending/resuming individual threads prior to continuing the process.
>
> gdb/ChangeLog:
>
> PR threads/20743
> * fbsd-nat.c (resume_one_thread_cb): Remove.
> (resume_all_threads_cb): Remove.
> (fbsd_resume): Use ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS instead of
> iterate_over_threads.
...
> @@ -711,13 +679,37 @@ fbsd_resume (struct target_ops *ops,
> if (ptid_lwp_p (ptid))
> {
> /* If ptid is a specific LWP, suspend all other LWPs in the process. */
> - iterate_over_threads (resume_one_thread_cb, &ptid);
> + struct thread_info *tp;
> + int request;
> +
> + ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS (tp)
> + {
> + if (ptid_get_pid (tp->ptid) != ptid_get_pid (ptid))
> + continue;
> +
> + if (ptid_get_lwp (tp->ptid) == ptid_get_lwp (ptid))
> + request = PT_RESUME;
> + else
> + request = PT_SUSPEND;
> +
> + if (ptrace (request, ptid_get_lwp (tp->ptid), NULL, 0) == -1)
> + perror_with_name (("ptrace"));
> + }
Identation of the ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS block is off. I'd check the
identation of the entire block to make sure it is sane.
A question i have is why did we have to remove the original functions.
Couldn't we have checked the non-exited-ness of the threads inside the
callback?
Another bit... Since we're changing this code, might as well improve the
perror message so it is more meaningful?
> }
> else
> {
> /* If ptid is a wildcard, resume all matching threads (they won't run
> until the process is continued however). */
> - iterate_over_threads (resume_all_threads_cb, &ptid);
> + struct thread_info *tp;
> +
> + ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS (tp)
> + {
> + if (!ptid_match (tp->ptid, ptid))
> + continue;
> +
> + if (ptrace (PT_RESUME, ptid_get_lwp (tp->ptid), NULL, 0) == -1)
> + perror_with_name (("ptrace"));
> + }
Identation is off too.
Same as above for the error message.
Otherwise i have no further comments. I assume you ran gdb's testsuite
against this change and verified the results are sane?
Other folks can chime in.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] PR threads/20743: Don't attempt to suspend or resume exited threads.
2017-04-12 18:12 ` Luis Machado
@ 2017-04-14 22:40 ` John Baldwin
2017-04-15 1:01 ` Luis Machado
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: John Baldwin @ 2017-04-14 22:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches, Luis Machado
On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 01:11:45 PM Luis Machado wrote:
> On 04/04/2017 12:32 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> > When resuming a native FreeBSD process, ignore exited threads when
> > suspending/resuming individual threads prior to continuing the process.
> >
> > gdb/ChangeLog:
> >
> > PR threads/20743
> > * fbsd-nat.c (resume_one_thread_cb): Remove.
> > (resume_all_threads_cb): Remove.
> > (fbsd_resume): Use ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS instead of
> > iterate_over_threads.
> ...
> > @@ -711,13 +679,37 @@ fbsd_resume (struct target_ops *ops,
> > if (ptid_lwp_p (ptid))
> > {
> > /* If ptid is a specific LWP, suspend all other LWPs in the process. */
> > - iterate_over_threads (resume_one_thread_cb, &ptid);
> > + struct thread_info *tp;
> > + int request;
> > +
> > + ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS (tp)
> > + {
> > + if (ptid_get_pid (tp->ptid) != ptid_get_pid (ptid))
> > + continue;
> > +
> > + if (ptid_get_lwp (tp->ptid) == ptid_get_lwp (ptid))
> > + request = PT_RESUME;
> > + else
> > + request = PT_SUSPEND;
> > +
> > + if (ptrace (request, ptid_get_lwp (tp->ptid), NULL, 0) == -1)
> > + perror_with_name (("ptrace"));
> > + }
>
> Identation of the ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS block is off. I'd check the
> identation of the entire block to make sure it is sane.
Hmm, the raw code looks fine. I know that my MUA (kmail) messes up formatting
of code as it displays tabs as 4 characters instead of 8? Here's the raw
code with tabs expanded to spaces:
ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS (tp)
{
if (ptid_get_pid (tp->ptid) != ptid_get_pid (ptid))
continue;
if (ptid_get_lwp (tp->ptid) == ptid_get_lwp (ptid))
request = PT_RESUME;
else
request = PT_SUSPEND;
if (ptrace (request, ptid_get_lwp (tp->ptid), NULL, 0) == -1)
perror_with_name (("ptrace"));
}
> A question i have is why did we have to remove the original functions.
> Couldn't we have checked the non-exited-ness of the threads inside the
> callback?
That was what the V1 patch did, but you and Pedro requested it use
ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS instead, hence version 2.
> Another bit... Since we're changing this code, might as well improve the
> perror message so it is more meaningful?
I could perhaps do a followup to include the ptrace op in the various
perror's in this file (all of them use this, as do the various BSD
nat.c files used for register fetch/store).
> Otherwise i have no further comments. I assume you ran gdb's testsuite
> against this change and verified the results are sane?
There were no regressions at least. With the stock tree there are
several unexpected failures already which I will get to at some point.
--
John Baldwin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] PR threads/20743: Don't attempt to suspend or resume exited threads.
2017-04-14 22:40 ` John Baldwin
@ 2017-04-15 1:01 ` Luis Machado
2017-04-17 18:27 ` John Baldwin
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Luis Machado @ 2017-04-15 1:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Baldwin, gdb-patches
On 04/14/2017 05:40 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> Hmm, the raw code looks fine. I know that my MUA (kmail) messes up formatting
> of code as it displays tabs as 4 characters instead of 8? Here's the raw
> code with tabs expanded to spaces:
Ah, that could very well be it.
>
> ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS (tp)
> {
> if (ptid_get_pid (tp->ptid) != ptid_get_pid (ptid))
> continue;
>
> if (ptid_get_lwp (tp->ptid) == ptid_get_lwp (ptid))
> request = PT_RESUME;
> else
> request = PT_SUSPEND;
>
> if (ptrace (request, ptid_get_lwp (tp->ptid), NULL, 0) == -1)
> perror_with_name (("ptrace"));
> }
>
The indentation here looks fine indeed.
>> A question i have is why did we have to remove the original functions.
>> Couldn't we have checked the non-exited-ness of the threads inside the
>> callback?
>
> That was what the V1 patch did, but you and Pedro requested it use
> ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS instead, hence version 2.
>
Sorry, i swapped out the context of v1.
>> Another bit... Since we're changing this code, might as well improve the
>> perror message so it is more meaningful?
>
> I could perhaps do a followup to include the ptrace op in the various
> perror's in this file (all of them use this, as do the various BSD
> nat.c files used for register fetch/store).
>
That sounds like a good idea and could be postponed to a more convenient
time.
>> Otherwise i have no further comments. I assume you ran gdb's testsuite
>> against this change and verified the results are sane?
>
> There were no regressions at least. With the stock tree there are
> several unexpected failures already which I will get to at some point.
>
Great. I have no further comments.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] PR threads/20743: Don't attempt to suspend or resume exited threads.
2017-04-15 1:01 ` Luis Machado
@ 2017-04-17 18:27 ` John Baldwin
2017-04-17 18:32 ` Luis Machado
2017-04-18 14:27 ` Simon Marchi
0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: John Baldwin @ 2017-04-17 18:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Luis Machado; +Cc: gdb-patches
On Friday, April 14, 2017 08:01:25 PM Luis Machado wrote:
> On 04/14/2017 05:40 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> Otherwise i have no further comments. I assume you ran gdb's testsuite
> >> against this change and verified the results are sane?
> >
> > There were no regressions at least. With the stock tree there are
> > several unexpected failures already which I will get to at some point.
> >
>
> Great. I have no further comments.
To be clear (since I believe I messed this up before), I still need approval
from an approver?
--
John Baldwin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] PR threads/20743: Don't attempt to suspend or resume exited threads.
2017-04-17 18:27 ` John Baldwin
@ 2017-04-17 18:32 ` Luis Machado
2017-04-18 14:27 ` Simon Marchi
1 sibling, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Luis Machado @ 2017-04-17 18:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Baldwin; +Cc: gdb-patches
On 04/17/2017 01:27 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Friday, April 14, 2017 08:01:25 PM Luis Machado wrote:
>> On 04/14/2017 05:40 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
>>>> Otherwise i have no further comments. I assume you ran gdb's testsuite
>>>> against this change and verified the results are sane?
>>>
>>> There were no regressions at least. With the stock tree there are
>>> several unexpected failures already which I will get to at some point.
>>>
>>
>> Great. I have no further comments.
>
> To be clear (since I believe I messed this up before), I still need approval
> from an approver?
>
Right. I'm mainly reviewing. I can't formally approve.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] PR threads/20743: Don't attempt to suspend or resume exited threads.
2017-04-17 18:27 ` John Baldwin
2017-04-17 18:32 ` Luis Machado
@ 2017-04-18 14:27 ` Simon Marchi
2017-04-18 14:29 ` Simon Marchi
` (2 more replies)
1 sibling, 3 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Simon Marchi @ 2017-04-18 14:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Baldwin; +Cc: Luis Machado, gdb-patches
On 2017-04-17 14:27, John Baldwin wrote:
> On Friday, April 14, 2017 08:01:25 PM Luis Machado wrote:
>> On 04/14/2017 05:40 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
>> >> Otherwise i have no further comments. I assume you ran gdb's testsuite
>> >> against this change and verified the results are sane?
>> >
>> > There were no regressions at least. With the stock tree there are
>> > several unexpected failures already which I will get to at some point.
>> >
>>
>> Great. I have no further comments.
>
> To be clear (since I believe I messed this up before), I still need
> approval
> from an approver?
I read both the v1 and v2 threads to get the context, the patch looks
good to me. Pedro was fine with the ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS approach as
well, so go ahead and push. I think it should go in the 8.0 branch as
well.
Btw, do you know why the double parenthesis in
perror_with_name (("ptrace"));
? Feel free to remove the extra parenthesis before pushing.
Thanks,
Simon
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] PR threads/20743: Don't attempt to suspend or resume exited threads.
2017-04-18 14:27 ` Simon Marchi
@ 2017-04-18 14:29 ` Simon Marchi
2017-04-18 14:58 ` Pedro Alves
2017-04-18 16:53 ` John Baldwin
2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Simon Marchi @ 2017-04-18 14:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Baldwin; +Cc: Luis Machado, gdb-patches
On 2017-04-18 10:27, Simon Marchi wrote:
> I read both the v1 and v2 threads to get the context, the patch looks
> good to me. Pedro was fine with the ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS approach
> as well, so go ahead and push. I think it should go in the 8.0 branch
> as well.
>
> Btw, do you know why the double parenthesis in
>
> perror_with_name (("ptrace"));
>
> ? Feel free to remove the extra parenthesis before pushing.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Simon
Oops, I missed Pedro's reply before replying.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] PR threads/20743: Don't attempt to suspend or resume exited threads.
2017-04-18 14:27 ` Simon Marchi
2017-04-18 14:29 ` Simon Marchi
@ 2017-04-18 14:58 ` Pedro Alves
2017-04-18 16:53 ` John Baldwin
2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Pedro Alves @ 2017-04-18 14:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Simon Marchi, John Baldwin; +Cc: Luis Machado, gdb-patches
On 04/18/2017 03:27 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
> Btw, do you know why the double parenthesis in
>
> perror_with_name (("ptrace"));
>
> ? Feel free to remove the extra parenthesis before pushing.
That's to quiet the ARI. Otherwise it complains about the
missing _() for i18n.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] PR threads/20743: Don't attempt to suspend or resume exited threads.
2017-04-18 14:27 ` Simon Marchi
2017-04-18 14:29 ` Simon Marchi
2017-04-18 14:58 ` Pedro Alves
@ 2017-04-18 16:53 ` John Baldwin
2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: John Baldwin @ 2017-04-18 16:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches; +Cc: Simon Marchi, Luis Machado
On Tuesday, April 18, 2017 10:27:51 AM Simon Marchi wrote:
> On 2017-04-17 14:27, John Baldwin wrote:
> > On Friday, April 14, 2017 08:01:25 PM Luis Machado wrote:
> >> On 04/14/2017 05:40 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> >> >> Otherwise i have no further comments. I assume you ran gdb's testsuite
> >> >> against this change and verified the results are sane?
> >> >
> >> > There were no regressions at least. With the stock tree there are
> >> > several unexpected failures already which I will get to at some point.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Great. I have no further comments.
> >
> > To be clear (since I believe I messed this up before), I still need
> > approval
> > from an approver?
>
> I read both the v1 and v2 threads to get the context, the patch looks
> good to me. Pedro was fine with the ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS approach as
> well, so go ahead and push. I think it should go in the 8.0 branch as
> well.
Thanks, pushed to both.
--
John Baldwin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v2] PR threads/20743: Don't attempt to suspend or resume exited threads.
2017-04-04 17:33 [PATCH v2] PR threads/20743: Don't attempt to suspend or resume exited threads John Baldwin
2017-04-11 18:43 ` John Baldwin
2017-04-12 18:12 ` Luis Machado
@ 2017-04-18 11:33 ` Pedro Alves
2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Pedro Alves @ 2017-04-18 11:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: John Baldwin, gdb-patches
On 04/04/2017 06:32 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
> When resuming a native FreeBSD process, ignore exited threads when
> suspending/resuming individual threads prior to continuing the process.
>
> gdb/ChangeLog:
>
> PR threads/20743
> * fbsd-nat.c (resume_one_thread_cb): Remove.
> (resume_all_threads_cb): Remove.
> (fbsd_resume): Use ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS instead of
> iterate_over_threads.
LGTM. OK for master and 8.0.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-04-18 16:53 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-04-04 17:33 [PATCH v2] PR threads/20743: Don't attempt to suspend or resume exited threads John Baldwin
2017-04-11 18:43 ` John Baldwin
2017-04-12 18:12 ` Luis Machado
2017-04-14 22:40 ` John Baldwin
2017-04-15 1:01 ` Luis Machado
2017-04-17 18:27 ` John Baldwin
2017-04-17 18:32 ` Luis Machado
2017-04-18 14:27 ` Simon Marchi
2017-04-18 14:29 ` Simon Marchi
2017-04-18 14:58 ` Pedro Alves
2017-04-18 16:53 ` John Baldwin
2017-04-18 11:33 ` Pedro Alves
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).