From: Jim Blandy <jimb@codesourcery.com>
To: Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman@br.ibm.com>
Cc: Michael Snyder <msnyder@specifix.com>,
Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>,
gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: Keeping breakpoints inserted
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 18:14:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <m3k5nv4peg.fsf@codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1196620597.6746.179.camel@localhost.localdomain> (Thiago Jung Bauermann's message of "Sun, 02 Dec 2007 16:36:37 -0200")
Thiago Jung Bauermann <bauerman at br.ibm.com> writes:
> On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 09:52 -0800, Jim Blandy wrote:
>> On Nov 30, 2007 5:30 PM, Michael Snyder <msnyder@specifix.com> wrote:
>> The original concern you raised was that non-stop debugging is "more
>> intrusive than we already are". But clearly all-stop debugging on a
>> live system is maximally intrusive to the system's users; non-stop
>> debugging has the potential to be much less intrusive, when used with
>> knowledge of the interactions between the system's threads.
>
> There are cases when a developer will want to use non-stop debugging but
> minimize change of relative timing of threads. Suppose that a developer
> is trying to debug a deadlock situation in a program with 3 threads. A
> and B are deadlocking, and C is a "supporting" thread without which the
> other two can't run. He can't use all-stop debugging because while
> inspecting A and B, C needs to be running. In this case, relative timing
> of threads is important in order to have better chance at reproducing
> the deadlock.
Something that would be nice would be the ability to define "thread
groups", that you could stop and start as a group, restrict
breakpoints to, and so on. You could put A and B in a thread group,
and leave C out of it. That kind of feature would be straightforward
to implement in terms of the non-stop debugging we're doing now.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-12-03 18:14 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
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 [this message]
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=m3k5nv4peg.fsf@codesourcery.com \
--to=jimb@codesourcery.com \
--cc=bauerman@br.ibm.com \
--cc=gdb@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=msnyder@specifix.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).