Re: [PATCH 11/18] gdbserver: fix killed-outside.exp

[Yao Qi <qiyaoltc at gmail dot com>]

Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:

> diff --git a/gdb/gdbserver/linux-low.c b/gdb/gdbserver/linux-low.c
> index 1c447c2..af9ca22 100644
> --- a/gdb/gdbserver/linux-low.c
> +++ b/gdb/gdbserver/linux-low.c
> @@ -1535,12 +1535,6 @@ thread_still_has_status_pending_p (struct thread_info *thread)
>    if (!lp->status_pending_p)
>      return 0;
>  
> -  /* If we got a `vCont;t', but we haven't reported a stop yet, do
> -     report any status pending the LWP may have.  */
> -  if (thread->last_resume_kind == resume_stop
> -      && thread->last_status.kind != TARGET_WAITKIND_IGNORE)
> -    return 0;
> -

Shouldn't we return 1 instead of 0 here?  This is consistent with the
comments above.

>    if (thread->last_resume_kind != resume_stop
>        && (lp->stop_reason == TARGET_STOPPED_BY_SW_BREAKPOINT
>  	  || lp->stop_reason == TARGET_STOPPED_BY_HW_BREAKPOINT))
> @@ -1597,6 +1591,24 @@ thread_still_has_status_pending_p (struct thread_info *thread)
>    return 1;
>  }
>  
> +/* Returns true if LWP is resumed from the client's perspective.  */
> +
> +static int
> +lwp_resumed (struct lwp_info *lwp)
> +{
> +  struct thread_info *thread = get_lwp_thread (lwp);
> +
> +  if (thread->last_resume_kind != resume_stop)
> +    return 1;
> +
> +  /* Did we get a `vCont;t', but we haven't reported a stop yet?  */
> +  if (thread->last_resume_kind == resume_stop
> +      && thread->last_status.kind == TARGET_WAITKIND_IGNORE)
> +    return 1;
> +

I feel "reported" isn't precise.  Is "got" better?  The code means
GDBserver has already got vCont;t and sent SIGSTOP, but hasn't *got*
stop event out of event loop.  After GDBserver got this event, it then
reports the event back to GDB if needed.

-- 
Yao (éå)