* [Bug gdb/26761] thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed
2020-10-20 16:07 [Bug gdb/26761] New: thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed vries at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-10-20 16:07 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-25 21:05 ` marcdufresne at laposte dot net
` (23 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: vries at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2020-10-20 16:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
--- Comment #1 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Created attachment 12913
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12913&action=edit
gzipped gdb.log
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug gdb/26761] thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed
2020-10-20 16:07 [Bug gdb/26761] New: thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-10-20 16:07 ` [Bug gdb/26761] " vries at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2020-11-25 21:05 ` marcdufresne at laposte dot net
2020-12-13 13:12 ` ddresser at bmc dot com
` (22 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: marcdufresne at laposte dot net @ 2020-11-25 21:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
rastaleo <marcdufresne at laposte dot net> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |marcdufresne at laposte dot net
--- Comment #2 from rastaleo <marcdufresne at laposte dot net> ---
Created attachment 12998
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=12998&action=edit
same bug Mac Os Big Sur
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug gdb/26761] thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed
2020-10-20 16:07 [Bug gdb/26761] New: thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-10-20 16:07 ` [Bug gdb/26761] " vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2020-11-25 21:05 ` marcdufresne at laposte dot net
@ 2020-12-13 13:12 ` ddresser at bmc dot com
2020-12-14 19:04 ` simark at simark dot ca
` (21 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: ddresser at bmc dot com @ 2020-12-13 13:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
David Dresser <ddresser at bmc dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |ddresser at bmc dot com
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug gdb/26761] thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed
2020-10-20 16:07 [Bug gdb/26761] New: thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed vries at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 preceding siblings ...)
2020-12-13 13:12 ` ddresser at bmc dot com
@ 2020-12-14 19:04 ` simark at simark dot ca
2020-12-14 19:06 ` simark at simark dot ca
` (20 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: simark at simark dot ca @ 2020-12-14 19:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
Simon Marchi <simark at simark dot ca> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |phil.rados at gmail dot com
--- Comment #3 from Simon Marchi <simark at simark dot ca> ---
*** Bug 27043 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug gdb/26761] thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed
2020-10-20 16:07 [Bug gdb/26761] New: thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed vries at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 preceding siblings ...)
2020-12-14 19:04 ` simark at simark dot ca
@ 2020-12-14 19:06 ` simark at simark dot ca
2021-02-17 22:34 ` Minima2014 at iCloud dot com
` (19 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: simark at simark dot ca @ 2020-12-14 19:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
Simon Marchi <simark at simark dot ca> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |simark at simark dot ca
--- Comment #4 from Simon Marchi <simark at simark dot ca> ---
Nevermind about the duplicate notification above, it was a mistake.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug gdb/26761] thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed
2020-10-20 16:07 [Bug gdb/26761] New: thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed vries at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 preceding siblings ...)
2020-12-14 19:06 ` simark at simark dot ca
@ 2021-02-17 22:34 ` Minima2014 at iCloud dot com
2021-09-16 1:17 ` parke.nexus at gmail dot com
` (18 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: Minima2014 at iCloud dot com @ 2021-02-17 22:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
Minima2014 at iCloud dot com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |Minima2014 at iCloud dot com
--- Comment #5 from Minima2014 at iCloud dot com ---
Created attachment 13229
--> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=13229&action=edit
Reproduced on macOS Mojave 10.14.6 (18G8022)
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug gdb/26761] thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed
2020-10-20 16:07 [Bug gdb/26761] New: thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed vries at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 preceding siblings ...)
2021-02-17 22:34 ` Minima2014 at iCloud dot com
@ 2021-09-16 1:17 ` parke.nexus at gmail dot com
2021-09-19 2:10 ` simark at simark dot ca
` (17 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: parke.nexus at gmail dot com @ 2021-09-16 1:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
Parke <parke.nexus at gmail dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |parke.nexus at gmail dot com
--- Comment #6 from Parke <parke.nexus at gmail dot com> ---
I encounter a similar bug. Easy to reproduce.
On Arch Linux:
$ gdb --version
GNU gdb (GDB) 10.2
[snip]
$ gdb -q -ex run /bin/true
Reading symbols from /bin/true...
(No debugging symbols found in /bin/true)
Starting program: /usr/bin/true
[Inferior 1 (process 339) exited normally]
../../gdb/thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread():
Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed.
A problem internal to GDB has been detected,
further debugging may prove unreliable.
This is a bug, please report it. For instructions, see:
<https://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>.
Aborted (core dumped)
$ cat ~/.gdbinit
define hook-quit
set confirm off
end
python
def exit_handler ( event ):
if hasattr ( event, 'exit_code' ) and event .exit_code == 0:
gdb .execute ( "quit" )
gdb .events .exited .connect ( exit_handler )
end
----
I encounter a similar bug on Ubuntu 20.04.
$ gdb --version
GNU gdb (Ubuntu 9.2-0ubuntu1~20.04) 9.2
[snip]
$ gdb -q -ex run /bin/true
Reading symbols from /bin/true...
(No debugging symbols found in /bin/true)
Starting program: /usr/bin/true
[Inferior 1 (process 4134946) exited normally]
/build/gdb-OxeNvS/gdb-9.2/gdb/inferior.c:283: internal-error: inferior*
find_inferior_pid(int): Assertion `pid != 0' failed.
A problem internal to GDB has been detected,
further debugging may prove unreliable.
This is a bug, please report it. For instructions, see:
<http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>.
Aborted (core dumped)
Possibly related:
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27682
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug gdb/26761] thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed
2020-10-20 16:07 [Bug gdb/26761] New: thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed vries at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 preceding siblings ...)
2021-09-16 1:17 ` parke.nexus at gmail dot com
@ 2021-09-19 2:10 ` simark at simark dot ca
2021-09-19 3:43 ` parke.nexus at gmail dot com
` (16 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: simark at simark dot ca @ 2021-09-19 2:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
--- Comment #7 from Simon Marchi <simark at simark dot ca> ---
(In reply to Parke from comment #6)
> I encounter a similar bug. Easy to reproduce.
>
> On Arch Linux:
>
> $ gdb --version
> GNU gdb (GDB) 10.2
> [snip]
>
> $ gdb -q -ex run /bin/true
> Reading symbols from /bin/true...
> (No debugging symbols found in /bin/true)
> Starting program: /usr/bin/true
> [Inferior 1 (process 339) exited normally]
> ../../gdb/thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread():
> Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed.
> A problem internal to GDB has been detected,
> further debugging may prove unreliable.
>
> This is a bug, please report it. For instructions, see:
> <https://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>.
>
> Aborted (core dumped)
>
> $ cat ~/.gdbinit
> define hook-quit
> set confirm off
> end
>
> python
>
> def exit_handler ( event ):
> if hasattr ( event, 'exit_code' ) and event .exit_code == 0:
> gdb .execute ( "quit" )
>
> gdb .events .exited .connect ( exit_handler )
>
> end
>
> ----
>
> I encounter a similar bug on Ubuntu 20.04.
>
> $ gdb --version
> GNU gdb (Ubuntu 9.2-0ubuntu1~20.04) 9.2
> [snip]
>
> $ gdb -q -ex run /bin/true
> Reading symbols from /bin/true...
> (No debugging symbols found in /bin/true)
> Starting program: /usr/bin/true
> [Inferior 1 (process 4134946) exited normally]
> /build/gdb-OxeNvS/gdb-9.2/gdb/inferior.c:283: internal-error: inferior*
> find_inferior_pid(int): Assertion `pid != 0' failed.
> A problem internal to GDB has been detected,
> further debugging may prove unreliable.
>
> This is a bug, please report it. For instructions, see:
> <http://www.gnu.org/software/gdb/bugs/>.
>
> Aborted (core dumped)
>
> Possibly related:
> https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=27682
Although the symptom is the same, the root cause for this particular assertion
to fail can be one of many things. So I would suggest filing a new bug, with a
title that is specific to what you are doing (e.g. "Assertion failure when
using Python exit event handler".
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug gdb/26761] thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed
2020-10-20 16:07 [Bug gdb/26761] New: thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed vries at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 preceding siblings ...)
2021-09-19 2:10 ` simark at simark dot ca
@ 2021-09-19 3:43 ` parke.nexus at gmail dot com
2022-09-29 10:02 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
` (15 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: parke.nexus at gmail dot com @ 2021-09-19 3:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
--- Comment #8 from Parke <parke.nexus at gmail dot com> ---
(In reply to Parke from comment #6)
[snip]
(In reply to Simon Marchi from comment #7)
> Although the symptom is the same, the root cause for this particular
> assertion to fail can be one of many things. So I would suggest filing a
> new bug, with a title that is specific to what you are doing (e.g.
> "Assertion failure when using Python exit event handler".
Done.
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=28352
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug gdb/26761] thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed
2020-10-20 16:07 [Bug gdb/26761] New: thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed vries at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 preceding siblings ...)
2021-09-19 3:43 ` parke.nexus at gmail dot com
@ 2022-09-29 10:02 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-29 12:07 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
` (14 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: vries at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-09-29 10:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
--- Comment #9 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
This seems to fix it:
...
diff --git a/gdb/thread.c b/gdb/thread.c
index 378c5ee2d13..21d21c9d1c6 100644
--- a/gdb/thread.c
+++ b/gdb/thread.c
@@ -631,7 +631,8 @@ any_thread_of_inferior (inferior *inf)
gdb_assert (inf->pid != 0);
/* Prefer the current thread, if there's one. */
- if (inf == current_inferior () && inferior_ptid != null_ptid)
+ if (inf == current_inferior () && inferior_ptid != null_ptid
+ && current_thread_ != nullptr)
return inferior_thread ();
for (thread_info *tp : inf->non_exited_threads ())
...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug gdb/26761] thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed
2020-10-20 16:07 [Bug gdb/26761] New: thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed vries at gcc dot gnu.org
` (9 preceding siblings ...)
2022-09-29 10:02 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-09-29 12:07 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-29 14:24 ` simark at simark dot ca
` (13 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: vries at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-09-29 12:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
--- Comment #10 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #9)
> This seems to fix it:
> ...
> diff --git a/gdb/thread.c b/gdb/thread.c
> index 378c5ee2d13..21d21c9d1c6 100644
> --- a/gdb/thread.c
> +++ b/gdb/thread.c
> @@ -631,7 +631,8 @@ any_thread_of_inferior (inferior *inf)
> gdb_assert (inf->pid != 0);
>
> /* Prefer the current thread, if there's one. */
> - if (inf == current_inferior () && inferior_ptid != null_ptid)
> + if (inf == current_inferior () && inferior_ptid != null_ptid
> + && current_thread_ != nullptr)
> return inferior_thread ();
>
> for (thread_info *tp : inf->non_exited_threads ())
> ...
Full test run on x86_64-linux showed no regressions.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug gdb/26761] thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed
2020-10-20 16:07 [Bug gdb/26761] New: thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed vries at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 preceding siblings ...)
2022-09-29 12:07 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-09-29 14:24 ` simark at simark dot ca
2022-09-29 14:42 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: simark at simark dot ca @ 2022-09-29 14:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
--- Comment #11 from Simon Marchi <simark at simark dot ca> ---
Is it possible that this series here is addressing this bug?
https://inbox.sourceware.org/gdb-patches/20220227000051.3336149-1-kevinb@redhat.com/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug gdb/26761] thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed
2020-10-20 16:07 [Bug gdb/26761] New: thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed vries at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 preceding siblings ...)
2022-09-29 14:24 ` simark at simark dot ca
@ 2022-09-29 14:42 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-29 14:43 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
` (11 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: vries at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-09-29 14:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
--- Comment #12 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
Alternatively:
...
diff --git a/gdb/proc-service.c b/gdb/proc-service.c
index dd3d7c9201e..88f07d78236 100644
--- a/gdb/proc-service.c
+++ b/gdb/proc-service.c
@@ -73,13 +73,9 @@ ps_xfer_memory (const struct ps_prochandle *ph, psaddr_t
addr,
gdb_byte *buf, size_t len, int write)
{
scoped_restore_current_inferior restore_inferior;
- set_current_inferior (ph->thread->inf);
-
scoped_restore_current_program_space restore_current_progspace;
- set_current_program_space (ph->thread->inf->pspace);
-
scoped_restore save_inferior_ptid = make_scoped_restore (&inferior_ptid);
- inferior_ptid = ph->thread->ptid;
+ switch_to_thread_no_regs (ph->thread);
CORE_ADDR core_addr = ps_addr_to_core_addr (addr);
...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug gdb/26761] thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed
2020-10-20 16:07 [Bug gdb/26761] New: thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed vries at gcc dot gnu.org
` (12 preceding siblings ...)
2022-09-29 14:42 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-09-29 14:43 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-09-29 15:22 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
` (10 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: vries at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-09-29 14:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
--- Comment #13 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Simon Marchi from comment #11)
> Is it possible that this series here is addressing this bug?
>
> https://inbox.sourceware.org/gdb-patches/20220227000051.3336149-1-
> kevinb@redhat.com/
Ack, let me check.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug gdb/26761] thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed
2020-10-20 16:07 [Bug gdb/26761] New: thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed vries at gcc dot gnu.org
` (13 preceding siblings ...)
2022-09-29 14:43 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-09-29 15:22 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
2022-12-15 14:56 ` tromey at sourceware dot org
` (9 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: vries at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2022-09-29 15:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
--- Comment #14 from Tom de Vries <vries at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #13)
> (In reply to Simon Marchi from comment #11)
> > Is it possible that this series here is addressing this bug?
> >
> > https://inbox.sourceware.org/gdb-patches/20220227000051.3336149-1-
> > kevinb@redhat.com/
>
> Ack, let me check.
I build gdb-12.1-release tag, reproduced the problem, then applied the patch
series, rebuild, and no more problem.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug gdb/26761] thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed
2020-10-20 16:07 [Bug gdb/26761] New: thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed vries at gcc dot gnu.org
` (14 preceding siblings ...)
2022-09-29 15:22 ` vries at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2022-12-15 14:56 ` tromey at sourceware dot org
2023-02-27 23:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (8 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: tromey at sourceware dot org @ 2022-12-15 14:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
Tom Tromey <tromey at sourceware dot org> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |tromey at sourceware dot org
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug gdb/26761] thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed
2020-10-20 16:07 [Bug gdb/26761] New: thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed vries at gcc dot gnu.org
` (15 preceding siblings ...)
2022-12-15 14:56 ` tromey at sourceware dot org
@ 2023-02-27 23:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-02-27 23:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (7 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-02-27 23:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
--- Comment #15 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Kevin Buettner <kevinb@sourceware.org>:
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=522044dc5fa76f9fef70fe746274daf09bbf64fe
commit 522044dc5fa76f9fef70fe746274daf09bbf64fe
Author: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
Date: Mon Feb 27 16:11:37 2023 -0700
Introduce gdb_exception_forced_quit
This commit adds a new exception 'gdb_exception_forced_quit', reason
code 'REASON_FORCED_QUIT', return mask 'RETURN_MASK_FORCED_QUIT', and
a wrapper for throwing the exception, throw_forced_quit().
The addition of this exception plus supporting code will allow us to
recognize that a SIGTERM has been received by GDB and then propagate
recognition of that fact to the upper levels of GDB where it can be
correctly handled. At the moment, when GDB receives a SIGTERM, it
will attempt to exit via a series of calls from the QUIT checking
code. However, before it can exit, it must do various cleanups, such
as killing or detaching all inferiors. Should these cleanups be
attempted while GDB is executing very low level code, such as reading
target memory from within ps_xfer_memory(), it can happen that some of
GDB's state is out of sync with regard to the cleanup code's
expectations. In the case just mentioned, it's been observed that
inferior_ptid and the current_thread_ are not in sync; this triggers
an assert / internal error.
This commit only introduces the exception plus supporting machinery;
changes which use this new exception are in later commits in this
series.
Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
Tested-by: Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>
Approved-by: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug gdb/26761] thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed
2020-10-20 16:07 [Bug gdb/26761] New: thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed vries at gcc dot gnu.org
` (16 preceding siblings ...)
2023-02-27 23:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-02-27 23:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-02-27 23:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (6 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-02-27 23:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
--- Comment #16 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Kevin Buettner <kevinb@sourceware.org>:
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=63509715af867d635ad0e8cfe5a662bfc67b4ddf
commit 63509715af867d635ad0e8cfe5a662bfc67b4ddf
Author: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
Date: Mon Feb 27 16:11:37 2023 -0700
Handle gdb SIGTERM by throwing / catching gdb_exception_force_quit
When a GDB process receives the SIGTERM signal, handle_sigterm() in
event-top.c is called. The global variable 'sync_quit_force_run' is
set by this signal handler. It does some other things too, but the
setting of this global is the important bit for the SIGTERM part of
this discussion.
GDB will periodically check to see whether a Ctrl-C or SIGTERM has
been received. This is performed via use of the QUIT macro in
GDB's code. QUIT is defined to invoke maybe_quit(), which will be
periodically called during any lengthy operation. This is supposed to
ensure that the user won't have to wait too long for a Ctrl-C or
SIGTERM to be acted upon.
When a Ctrl-C / SIGINT is received, quit_handler() will decide whether
to pass the SIGINT onto the inferior or to call quit() which causes
gdb_exception_quit to be thrown. This exception (usually) propagates
to the top level. Control is then returned to the top level event
loop.
At the moment, SIGTERM is handled very differently. Instead of
throwing an exception, quit_force() is called. This does eventually
cause GDB to exit(), but prior to that happening, the inferiors
are killed or detached and other target related cleanup occurs.
As shown in this discussion between Pedro Alves and myself...
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-July/180802.html
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-July/180902.html
https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-patches/2021-July/180903.html
...we found that it is possible for inferior_ptid and current_thread_
to get out of sync. When that happens, the "current_thread_ != nullptr"
assertion in inferior_thread() can fail resulting in a GDB internal
error.
Pedro recommended that we "let the normal quit exception propagate all
the way to the top level, and then have the top level call quit_force
if sync_quit_force_run is set." However, after the v2 series for this
patch set, we tweaked that idea by introducing a new exception for
handling SIGTERM.
This commit implements the obvious part of Pedro's suggestion:
Instead of calling quit_force from quit(), throw_forced_quit() is now
called instead. This causes the new exception 'gdb_exception_forced_quit'
to be thrown.
At the top level, I changed catch_command_errors() and captured_main()
to catch gdb_exception_forced_quit and then call quit_force() from the
catch block. I also changed start_event_loop() to also catch
gdb_exception_forced_quit; while we could also call quit_force() from
that catch block, it's sufficient to simply rethrow the exception
since it'll be caught by the newly added code in captured_main().
Making these changes fixed the failure / regression that I was seeing
for gdb.base/gdb-sigterm.exp when run on a machine with glibc-2.34.
However, there are many other paths back to the top level which this
test case does not test. I did an audit of all of the try / catch
code in GDB in which calls in the try-block might (eventually) call
QUIT. I found many cases where gdb_exception_quit and the new
gdb_exception_forced_quit will be swallowed. (When using GDB, have
you ever hit Ctrl-C and not have it do anything; if so, it could be
due to a swallowed gdb_exception_quit in one of the cases I've
identified.) The rest of the patches in this series deal with this
concern.
Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
Tested-by: Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>
Approved-by: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug gdb/26761] thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed
2020-10-20 16:07 [Bug gdb/26761] New: thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed vries at gcc dot gnu.org
` (17 preceding siblings ...)
2023-02-27 23:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-02-27 23:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-02-27 23:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (5 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-02-27 23:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
--- Comment #17 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Kevin Buettner <kevinb@sourceware.org>:
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=b1ffd1124a8c5170a9e06b867a886b1138d28514
commit b1ffd1124a8c5170a9e06b867a886b1138d28514
Author: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
Date: Mon Feb 27 16:11:37 2023 -0700
Catch gdb_exception_error instead of gdb_exception (in many places)
As described in the previous commit for this series, I became
concerned that there might be instances in which a QUIT (due to either
a SIGINT or SIGTERM) might not cause execution to return to the top
level. In some (though very few) instances, it is okay to not
propagate the exception for a Ctrl-C / SIGINT, but I don't think that
it is ever okay to swallow the exception caused by a SIGTERM.
Allowing that to happen would definitely be a deviation from the
current behavior in which GDB exits upon receipt of a SIGTERM.
I looked at all cases where an exception handler catches a
gdb_exception. Handlers which did NOT need modification were those
which satisifed one or more of the following conditions:
1) There is no call path to maybe_quit() in the try block. I used a
static analysis tool to help make this determination. In
instances where the tool didn't provide an answer of "yes, this
call path can result in maybe_quit() being called", I reviewed it
by hand.
2) The catch block contains a throw for conditions that it
doesn't want to handle; these "not handled" conditions
must include the quit exception and the new "forced quit" exception.
3) There was (also) a catch for gdb_exception_quit.
Any try/catch blocks not meeting the above conditions could
potentially swallow a QUIT exception.
My first thought was to add catch blocks for gdb_exception_quit and
then rethrow the exception. But Pedro pointed out that this can be
handled without adding additional code by simply catching
gdb_exception_error instead. That's what this patch series does.
There are some oddball cases which needed to be handled differently,
plus the extension languages, but those are handled in later patches.
Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
Tested-by: Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>
Approved-by: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug gdb/26761] thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed
2020-10-20 16:07 [Bug gdb/26761] New: thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed vries at gcc dot gnu.org
` (18 preceding siblings ...)
2023-02-27 23:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-02-27 23:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-02-27 23:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (4 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-02-27 23:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
--- Comment #18 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Kevin Buettner <kevinb@sourceware.org>:
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=b940a061c0d549dbe981463414da87cb84a8a9bb
commit b940a061c0d549dbe981463414da87cb84a8a9bb
Author: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
Date: Mon Feb 27 16:11:37 2023 -0700
Python QUIT processing updates
See the previous patches in this series for the motivation behind
these changes.
This commit contains updates to Python's QUIT handling. Ideally, we'd
like to throw gdb_exception_forced_quit through the extension
language; I made an attempt to do this for gdb_exception_quit in an
earlier version of this patch, but Pedro pointed out that it is
(almost certainly) not safe to do so.
Still, we definitely don't want to swallow the exception representing
a SIGTERM for GDB, nor do we want to force modules written in the
extension language to have to explicitly handle this case. Since the
idea is for GDB to cleanup and quit for this exception, we'll simply
call quit_force() just as if the gdb_exception_forced_quit propagation
had managed to make it back to the top level.
Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
Tested-by: Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>
Approved-By: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug gdb/26761] thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed
2020-10-20 16:07 [Bug gdb/26761] New: thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed vries at gcc dot gnu.org
` (19 preceding siblings ...)
2023-02-27 23:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-02-27 23:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-02-27 23:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (3 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-02-27 23:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
--- Comment #19 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Kevin Buettner <kevinb@sourceware.org>:
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=53f1f3d4aa7019a159d939b7bd2a27a93d630fda
commit 53f1f3d4aa7019a159d939b7bd2a27a93d630fda
Author: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
Date: Mon Feb 27 16:11:37 2023 -0700
Guile QUIT processing updates
This commit contains QUIT processing updates for GDB's Guile support.
As with the Python updates, we don't want to permit this code to
swallow the exception, gdb_exception_forced_quit, which is associated
with GDB receiving a SIGTERM.
I've adopted the same solution that I used for Python; whereever
a gdb_exception is caught in try/catch code in the Guile extension
language support, a catch for gdb_exception_forced_quit has been
added; this catch block will simply call quit_force(), which will
cause the necessary cleanups to occur followed by GDB exiting.
Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
Tested-by: Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>
Approved-By: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug gdb/26761] thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed
2020-10-20 16:07 [Bug gdb/26761] New: thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed vries at gcc dot gnu.org
` (20 preceding siblings ...)
2023-02-27 23:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-02-27 23:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-02-27 23:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
` (2 subsequent siblings)
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-02-27 23:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
--- Comment #20 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Kevin Buettner <kevinb@sourceware.org>:
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=363429d593eb1eb17f3f2cf6c247f60fadf660d9
commit 363429d593eb1eb17f3f2cf6c247f60fadf660d9
Author: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
Date: Mon Feb 27 16:11:37 2023 -0700
QUIT processing w/ explicit throw for gdb_exception_forced_quit
This commit contains changes which have an explicit throw for
gdb_exception_forced_quit, or, in a couple of cases for gdb_exception,
but with a throw following a check to see if 'reason' is
RETURN_FORCED_QUIT.
Most of these are straightforward - it made sense to continue to allow
an existing catch of gdb_exception to also catch gdb_exception_quit;
in these cases, a catch/throw for gdb_exception_forced_quit was added.
There are two cases, however, which deserve a more detailed
explanation.
1) remote_fileio_request in gdb/remote-fileio.c:
The try block calls do_remote_fileio_request which can (in turn)
call one of the functions in remote_fio_func_map[]. Taking the
first one, remote_fileio_func_open(), we have the following call
path to maybe_quit():
remote_fileio_func_open(remote_target*, char*)
-> target_read_memory(unsigned long, unsigned char*, long)
-> target_read(target_ops*, target_object, char const*, unsigned char*,
unsigned long, long)
-> maybe_quit()
Since there is a path to maybe_quit(), we must ensure that the
catch block is not permitted to swallow a QUIT representing a
SIGTERM.
However, for this case, we must take care not to change the way that
Ctrl-C / SIGINT is handled; we want to send a suitable EINTR reply to
the remote target should that happen. That being the case, I added a
catch/throw for gdb_exception_forced_quit. I also did a bit of
rewriting here, adding a catch for gdb_exception_quit in favor of
checking the 'reason' code in the catch block for gdb_exception.
2) mi_execute_command in gdb/mi/mi-main.c:
The try block calls captured_mi_execute_command(); there exists
a call path to maybe_quit():
captured_mi_execute_command(ui_out*, mi_parse*)
-> mi_cmd_execute(mi_parse*)
-> get_current_frame()
-> get_prev_frame_always_1(frame_info*)
-> frame_register_unwind_location(frame_info*, int, int*, lval_type*,
unsigned long*, int*)
-> frame_register_unwind(frame_info*, int, int*, int*, lval_type*,
unsigned long*, int*, unsigned char*)
-> value_entirely_available(value*)
-> value_fetch_lazy(value*)
-> value_fetch_lazy_memory(value*)
-> read_value_memory(value*, long, int, unsigned long, unsigned char*,
unsigned long)
-> maybe_quit()
That being the case, we can't allow the exception handler (catch block)
to swallow a gdb_exception_quit for SIGTERM. However, it does seem
reasonable to output the exception via the mi interface so that some
suitable message regarding SIGTERM might be printed; therefore, I
check the exception's 'reason' field for RETURN_FORCED_QUIT and
do a throw for this case.
Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
Tested-by: Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>
Approved-By: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug gdb/26761] thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed
2020-10-20 16:07 [Bug gdb/26761] New: thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed vries at gcc dot gnu.org
` (21 preceding siblings ...)
2023-02-27 23:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-02-27 23:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-02-27 23:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-09 22:44 ` kevinb at redhat dot com
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-02-27 23:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
--- Comment #21 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Kevin Buettner <kevinb@sourceware.org>:
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=80d03917838c16ee0da53a4a8642d5df3bee724e
commit 80d03917838c16ee0da53a4a8642d5df3bee724e
Author: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
Date: Mon Feb 27 16:11:37 2023 -0700
Introduce set_force_quit_flag and change type of sync_quit_force_run
At the moment, handle_sigterm() in event-top.c does the following:
sync_quit_force_run = 1;
set_quit_flag ();
This was used several more times in a later patch in this series, so
I'm introducing (at Pedro's suggestion) a new function named
'set_force_quit_flag'. It simply sets sync_quit_force_run and also
calls set_quit_flag(). I've revised the later patch to call
set_force_quit_flag instead.
I noticed that sync_quit_force_run is declared as an int but is being
used as a bool, so I also changed its type to bool in this commit.
Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
Approved-By: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug gdb/26761] thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed
2020-10-20 16:07 [Bug gdb/26761] New: thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed vries at gcc dot gnu.org
` (22 preceding siblings ...)
2023-02-27 23:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-02-27 23:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
2023-03-09 22:44 ` kevinb at redhat dot com
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org @ 2023-02-27 23:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
--- Comment #22 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Kevin Buettner <kevinb@sourceware.org>:
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=96e3f4e3c32865fecdb266c2a41532337c75e316
commit 96e3f4e3c32865fecdb266c2a41532337c75e316
Author: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
Date: Mon Feb 27 16:11:37 2023 -0700
Forced quit cases handled by resetting sync_quit_force_run
During my audit of the use of gdb_exception with regard to QUIT
processing, I found a try/catch in the scoped_switch_fork_info
destructor.
Static analysis found this call path from the destructor to
maybe_quit():
scoped_switch_fork_info::~scoped_switch_fork_info()
-> remove_breakpoints()
-> remove_breakpoint(bp_location*)
-> remove_breakpoint_1(bp_location*, remove_bp_reason)
-> memory_validate_breakpoint(gdbarch*, bp_target_info*)
-> target_read_memory(unsigned long, unsigned char*, long)
-> target_read(target_ops*, target_object, char const*, unsigned char*,
unsigned long, long)
-> maybe_quit()
Since it's not safe to do a 'throw' from a destructor, we simply
call set_quit_flag and, for gdb_exception_forced_quit, also
set sync_quit_force_run. This will cause the appropriate
exception to be rethrown at the next QUIT check.
Another case is the try / catch in tui_getc() in tui-io.c. The
existing catch swallows the exception. I've added a catch for
'gdb_exception_forced_quit', which also swallows the exception,
but also sets sync_quit_force_run and calls set_quit_flag in
order to restart forced quit processing at the next QUIT check.
This is required because it isn't safe to throw into/through
readline.
Thanks to Pedro Alves for suggesting this idea.
Bug: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
Tested-by: Tom de Vries <tdevries@suse.de>
Approved-By: Pedro Alves <pedro@palves.net>
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread* [Bug gdb/26761] thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed
2020-10-20 16:07 [Bug gdb/26761] New: thread.c:95: internal-error: thread_info* inferior_thread(): Assertion `current_thread_ != nullptr' failed vries at gcc dot gnu.org
` (23 preceding siblings ...)
2023-02-27 23:21 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org
@ 2023-03-09 22:44 ` kevinb at redhat dot com
24 siblings, 0 replies; 26+ messages in thread
From: kevinb at redhat dot com @ 2023-03-09 22:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-prs
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=26761
Kevin Buettner <kevinb at redhat dot com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |kevinb at redhat dot com
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|--- |FIXED
--- Comment #23 from Kevin Buettner <kevinb at redhat dot com> ---
Fix is in upstream sources now.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 26+ messages in thread