From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2395 invoked by alias); 23 Feb 2002 03:28:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact sid-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: sid-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 2148 invoked from network); 23 Feb 2002 03:28:53 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO tooth.toronto.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 23 Feb 2002 03:28:53 -0000 Received: (from fche@localhost) by tooth.toronto.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.0) id g1N3SqQ20210; Fri, 22 Feb 2002 22:28:52 -0500 Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 19:28:00 -0000 From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" To: Michael Snyder Cc: sid@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: sid debugger interface extension: step out-of-range packet support Message-ID: <20020222222851.A17206@redhat.com> References: <20020212171421.D13536@redhat.com> <3C76E8F3.673C6559@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-md5; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="u3/rZRmxL6MmkK24" Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <3C76E8F3.673C6559@redhat.com>; from msnyder@redhat.com on Fri, Feb 22, 2002 at 04:57:23PM -0800 X-SW-Source: 2002-q1/txt/msg00037.txt.bz2 --u3/rZRmxL6MmkK24 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-length: 913 Hi - msnyder wrote: > [...] > Thanks for pointing out this problem, which is in fact > more severe than you think. >=20 > A quick experiment reveals that if you=20 > 1) put a breakpoint at the beginning of line N > 2) put a second breakpoint in the MIDDLE of line N > 3) attempt to step over line N > the second breakpoint will not be hit. Interesting, but at least it's an unusual debugging usage scenario. > And in fact, if you have a multi-threaded program,=20 > all threads will have the opportunity to run (if they > are runnable), and NONE of them will hit ANY breakpoints > while we are executing line N. This will give threads > the opportunity to "run away". No, I think that's only if the other threads all happen also to be executing the same line N. If any passes outside, then the step-out-of-range process would abort, as the 'e' packet is no more thread-specific than 's' is. - FChE --u3/rZRmxL6MmkK24 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline Content-length: 232 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iD8DBQE8dwxzVZbdDOm/ZT0RAiuyAJ4tjpsIA4bnCw9E0EMMNcVPCe5hYgCeKwcD qspRN8dFNjgnt1zH+PjDYjI= =qFej -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --u3/rZRmxL6MmkK24--