From: Michael Snyder <msnyder@specifix.com>
To: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@br.ibm.com>
Cc: Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Keeping breakpoints inserted
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2007 21:41:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1196458063.2501.153.camel@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1196456622.6746.169.camel@localhost.localdomain>
On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 19:03 -0200, Thiago Jung Bauermann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2007-11-29 at 22:24 +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote:
> > Anybody has comments on this approach?
>
> When adding and removing breakpoints, will GDB stop all threads or just
> the one under inspection?
>
> On first thought, I think that if adding a breakpoint can be done
> atomically (i.e., trap instruction is 1 word wide), then it wouldn't be
> necessary to stop other threads. Am I being too naive here?
There will be some as-it-were non-deterministic behavior,
it seems to me. If threads are running while we are inserting
breakpoints, then there will (at some point) be breakpoint
events while we are inserting breakpoints, and the order of
these events (and of running-threads stopping) will depend
on the order in which we insert them, as well as on what
the running threads happen to be doing at the time.
I should think that this would be more intrusive (in the
sense of changing the behavior of the target program) than
we already are.
We could see a deadlock develop during the time it takes us
to insert all the breakpoints.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-11-30 21:41 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2007-11-29 19:24 Vladimir Prus
2007-11-30 1:25 ` Michael Snyder
2007-11-30 10:11 ` Vladimir Prus
2007-11-30 21:03 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2007-11-30 21:41 ` Michael Snyder [this message]
2007-12-01 0:08 ` Jim Blandy
2007-12-01 1:43 ` Michael Snyder
2007-12-01 17:52 ` Jim Blandy
2007-12-02 18:38 ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2007-12-03 18:14 ` Jim Blandy
2007-11-30 23:53 ` Jim Blandy
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1196458063.2501.153.camel@localhost.localdomain \
--to=msnyder@specifix.com \
--cc=bauerman@br.ibm.com \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=vladimir@codesourcery.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).