From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
 id C2F683947406; Wed, 14 Apr 2021 12:58:04 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org C2F683947406
From: "simark at simark dot ca" <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug gdb/27710] remote-notif.c:113: internal-error: void
 remote_async_get_pending_events_handler(gdb_client_data): Assertion
 `target_is_non_stop_p ()' failed
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 12:58:04 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb
X-Bugzilla-Component: gdb
X-Bugzilla-Version: HEAD
X-Bugzilla-Keywords: 
X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal
X-Bugzilla-Who: simark at simark dot ca
X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW
X-Bugzilla-Resolution: 
X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2
X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: unassigned at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-27710-4717-X6nud19eLo@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-27710-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-27710-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-BeenThere: gdb-prs@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Gdb-prs mailing list <gdb-prs.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/options/gdb-prs>,
 <mailto:gdb-prs-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/gdb-prs/>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-prs-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/gdb-prs>,
 <mailto:gdb-prs-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 12:58:04 -0000

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D27710

--- Comment #10 from Simon Marchi <simark at simark dot ca> ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #5)
> We have:
> ...
> bool
> target_can_async_p ()
> {
>   return current_inferior ()->top_target ()->can_async_p ();
> }
> ...
>=20
> AFAIU, current_inferior ()->top_target () translates to:
> ...
> (gdb) p
> current_inferior_.m_obj.m_target_stack.m_stack[current_inferior_.m_obj.
> m_target_stack.m_top]
> $16 =3D (target_ops *) 0x16c6cd0 <exec_ops>
> ...
>=20
> Exec_ops has type exec_target, which subclasses target_ops without
> implementing a can_async_p override, so we have the default:
> ...
>     virtual bool can_async_p ()
>       TARGET_DEFAULT_RETURN (false);
> ...

Since the test is related to multi-inferior, my first question would be, is=
 the
current inferior the right one (one that belongs to the remote target recei=
ving
the notification)?

We have the remote target in notif_state->remote_target, so maybe we need to
switch to it before calling target_is_non_stop_p.  From a quick look, it
doesn't seem like remote_notif_process cares about the current inferior tho=
ugh.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=