This is the mail archive of the gdb@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
The spanner in the works here is simulators. They can't implement schedule-locking because their scheduler is hardwired. The best they can manage is step off current instruction.Sure. I suppose we should clean up the interface to resume, to prevent all this confusion re-arising... which means figuring out our possible behaviors, and whether they are even implementable on particular targets.
On Linux the options for any given LWP (at the moment, that means forWhat is the absolute minimum needed?
any given thread) are step, run, stop. All combinations are available. I think the _useful_ ones are:
step one, stop others
step one, continue others
continue one, stop others
continue one, continue others
And, of course:
stop one, stop others
:)
PS: Some day letting the user be more precise (run these two threads) would be nice. I envision a day in the distant future: -> Continue thread 1 -> Continue thread 2 -> Wait for inferior status <- All threads stopped, thread 1, SIGSEGV or -> Continue all threads -> Wait for inferior status [maybe implicit in the all-threads request] <- Thread 1 stopped, shared lib breakpoint, all other threads running
Try ``target remote-async''.
But let's not try to design to that quite yet :)
:-)
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |