This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH v2] PR threads/20743: Don't attempt to suspend or resume exited threads.
On 04/14/2017 05:40 PM, John Baldwin wrote:
Hmm, the raw code looks fine. I know that my MUA (kmail) messes up formatting
of code as it displays tabs as 4 characters instead of 8? Here's the raw
code with tabs expanded to spaces:
Ah, that could very well be it.
ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS (tp)
{
if (ptid_get_pid (tp->ptid) != ptid_get_pid (ptid))
continue;
if (ptid_get_lwp (tp->ptid) == ptid_get_lwp (ptid))
request = PT_RESUME;
else
request = PT_SUSPEND;
if (ptrace (request, ptid_get_lwp (tp->ptid), NULL, 0) == -1)
perror_with_name (("ptrace"));
}
The indentation here looks fine indeed.
A question i have is why did we have to remove the original functions.
Couldn't we have checked the non-exited-ness of the threads inside the
callback?
That was what the V1 patch did, but you and Pedro requested it use
ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS instead, hence version 2.
Sorry, i swapped out the context of v1.
Another bit... Since we're changing this code, might as well improve the
perror message so it is more meaningful?
I could perhaps do a followup to include the ptrace op in the various
perror's in this file (all of them use this, as do the various BSD
nat.c files used for register fetch/store).
That sounds like a good idea and could be postponed to a more convenient
time.
Otherwise i have no further comments. I assume you ran gdb's testsuite
against this change and verified the results are sane?
There were no regressions at least. With the stock tree there are
several unexpected failures already which I will get to at some point.
Great. I have no further comments.