This is the mail archive of the 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]

Re: Keeping breakpoints inserted

On Sat, 2007-12-01 at 09:52 -0800, Jim Blandy wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2007 5:30 PM, Michael Snyder <> wrote:
> The original concern you raised was that non-stop debugging is "more
> intrusive than we already are".  But clearly all-stop debugging on a
> live system is maximally intrusive to the system's users; non-stop
> debugging has the potential to be much less intrusive, when used with
> knowledge of the interactions between the system's threads.

There are cases when a developer will want to use non-stop debugging but
minimize change of relative timing of threads. Suppose that a developer
is trying to debug a deadlock situation in a program with 3 threads. A
and B are deadlocking, and C is a "supporting" thread without which the
other two can't run. He can't use all-stop debugging because while
inspecting A and B, C needs to be running. In this case, relative timing
of threads is important in order to have better chance at reproducing
the deadlock.
Thiago Jung Bauermann
Software Engineer
IBM Linux Technology Center

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]