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] |
Hi - msnyder wrote: > [...] > Thanks for pointing out this problem, which is in fact > more severe than you think. > > A quick experiment reveals that if you > 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, > 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
Attachment:
msg00271/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |