Re: [ob] Don't clobber inferior_ptid in read_pc_pid

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at false dot org>]

On Sat, Feb 28, 2004 at 02:32:55PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >Another issue found in testing on arm-linux.  A return was added to this
> >function back in June; if we return from the middle of it, we leave
> >inferior_ptid set to the wrong thread.  This causes a "!ptid_equal
> >(ecs->ptid, inferior_ptid)" test to fail, since we called read_pc_pid
> >with ecs->ptid.  That leads to not calling context_switch; which clobbers
> >the stepping range for the previous thread; which causes stepping to stop
> >unexpectedly.
> >
> >I'll commit this patch as obvious in a day or two.
> 
> Can you please commit it now?

Sorry, I had left before this message arrived.

My goal in waiting was to retest on another target, which I did not
have time for this morning, and to wait for the release branch to be
confusion on my own part about the timing, since as of your
next-to-last announcement you were planning on back-dating the release
branch.  These are patches I consider suitable for the release branch
and it's not much extra work for me to retest and commit them on two
branches.

When I check in patches immediately people complain that I am acting
impetuously.  When I wait you ask me to commit the patch now.  When I
get back and see your message I get:

> Daniel, what the f- are you doing?  I'm half way through cutting a
> branch, the last thing I need is you being a fly-by nighter checking in
> random stuff.

OK, I'm wrong no matter what I do.  I'll come back to fixing ARM in a
few days when the dust has settled.

FYI, I stopped committing to the release branch as soon as I saw your
message asking me to.  You don't need to curse at me about it.  In
fact, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer