Currently, "set scheduler-locking step" is a bit odd. The manual
documents it as being optimized for stepping, so that focus of
debugging does not change unexpectedly, but then it says that
sometimes other threads may run, and thus focus may indeed change
unexpectedly... A user can then be excused to get confused and wonder
why does GDB behave like this.
I don't think a user should have to know about details of how "next"
or whatever other run control command is implemented internally to
understand when does the "scheduler-locking step" setting take effect.
This patch completes a transition that the code has been moving
towards for a while. It makes "set scheduler-locking step" hold
threads depending on whether the _command_ the user entered was a
stepping command [step/stepi/next/nexti], or not.
Before, GDB could end up locking threads even on "continue" if for
some reason run control decides a thread needs to be single stepped
(e.g., for a software watchpoint).
After, if a "continue" happens to need to single-step for some reason,
we won't lock threads (unless when stepping over a breakpoint,
naturally). And if a stepping command wants to continue a thread for
bit, like when skipping a function to a step-resume breakpoint, we'll
still lock threads, so focus of debugging doesn't change.
In order to make this work, we need to record in the thread structure
whether what set it running was a stepping command.
(A follow up patch will remove the "step" parameters of 'proceed' and 'resume')
FWIW, Fedora GDB, which defaults to "scheduler-locking step" (mainline
defaults to "off") carries a different patch that goes in this
direction as well.
Tested on x86_64 Fedora 20, native and gdbserver.
gdb/ChangeLog:
2015-03-24 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
* gdbthread.h (struct thread_control_state) <stepping_command>:
New field.
* infcmd.c (step_once): Pass step=1 to clear_proceed_status. Set
the thread's stepping_command field.
* infrun.c (resume): Check the thread's stepping_command flag to
determine which threads should be resumed. Rename 'entry_step'
local to user_step.
(clear_proceed_status_thread): Clear 'stepping_command'.
(schedlock_applies): Change parameter type to struct thread_info
pointer. Adjust.
(find_thread_needs_step_over): Remove 'step' parameter. Adjust.
(switch_back_to_stepped_thread): Adjust calls to
'schedlock_applies'.
(_initialize_infrun): Adjust "set scheduler-locking step" help.
gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2015-03-24 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
* gdb.threads/schedlock.exp (test_step): No longer expect that
"set scheduler-locking step" with "next" over a function call runs
threads unlocked.
gdb/doc/ChangeLog:
2015-03-24 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
* gdb.texinfo (test_step) <set scheduler-locking step>: No longer
mention that threads may sometimes run unlocked.
This PR shows that GDB can easily trigger an assertion here, in
infrun.c:
5392 /* Did we find the stepping thread? */
5393 if (tp->control.step_range_end)
5394 {
5395 /* Yep. There should only one though. */
5396 gdb_assert (stepping_thread == NULL);
5397
5398 /* The event thread is handled at the top, before we
5399 enter this loop. */
5400 gdb_assert (tp != ecs->event_thread);
5401
5402 /* If some thread other than the event thread is
5403 stepping, then scheduler locking can't be in effect,
5404 otherwise we wouldn't have resumed the current event
5405 thread in the first place. */
5406 gdb_assert (!schedlock_applies (currently_stepping (tp)));
5407
5408 stepping_thread = tp;
5409 }
Like:
gdb/infrun.c:5406: internal-error: switch_back_to_stepped_thread: Assertion `!schedlock_applies (1)' failed.
The way the assertion is written is assuming that with schedlock=step
we'll always leave threads other than the one with the stepping range
locked, while that's not true with the "next" command. With schedlock
"step", other threads still run unlocked when "next" detects a
function call and steps over it. Whether that makes sense or not,
still, it's documented that way in the manual. If another thread hits
an event that doesn't cause a stop while the nexting thread steps over
a function call, we'll get here and fail the assertion.
The fix is just to adjust the assertion. Even though we found the
stepping thread, we'll still step-over the breakpoint that just
triggered correctly.
Surprisingly, gdb.threads/schedlock.exp doesn't have any test that
steps over a function call. This commits fixes that. This ensures
that "next" doesn't switch focus to another thread, and checks whether
other threads run locked or not, depending on scheduler locking mode
and command. There's a lot of duplication in that file that this ends
cleaning up. There's more that could be cleaned up, but that would
end up an unrelated change, best done separately.
This new coverage in schedlock.exp happens to trigger the internal
error in question, like so:
FAIL: gdb.threads/schedlock.exp: schedlock=step: cmd=next: call_function=1: next to increment (1) (GDB internal error)
FAIL: gdb.threads/schedlock.exp: schedlock=step: cmd=next: call_function=1: next to increment (3) (GDB internal error)
FAIL: gdb.threads/schedlock.exp: schedlock=step: cmd=next: call_function=1: next to increment (5) (GDB internal error)
FAIL: gdb.threads/schedlock.exp: schedlock=step: cmd=next: call_function=1: next to increment (7) (GDB internal error)
FAIL: gdb.threads/schedlock.exp: schedlock=step: cmd=next: call_function=1: next to increment (9) (GDB internal error)
FAIL: gdb.threads/schedlock.exp: schedlock=step: cmd=next: call_function=1: next does not change thread (switched to thread 0)
FAIL: gdb.threads/schedlock.exp: schedlock=step: cmd=next: call_function=1: current thread advanced - unlocked (wrong amount)
That's because we have more than one thread running the same loop, and
while one thread is stepping over a function call, the other thread
hits the step-resume breakpoint of the first, which needs to be
stepped over, and we end up in switch_back_to_stepped_thread exactly
in the problem case.
I think a simpler and more directed test is also useful, to not rely
on internal breakpoint magics. So this commit also adds a test that
has a thread trip on a conditional breakpoint that doesn't cause a
user-visible stop while another thread is stepping over a call. That
currently fails like this:
FAIL: gdb.threads/next-bp-other-thread.exp: schedlock=step: next over function call (GDB internal error)
Tested on x86_64 Fedora 20.
gdb/
2014-10-29 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
PR gdb/17408
* infrun.c (switch_back_to_stepped_thread): Use currently_stepping
instead of assuming a thread with a stepping range is always
stepping.
gdb/testsuite/
2014-10-29 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
PR gdb/17408
* gdb.threads/schedlock.c (some_function): New function.
(call_function): New global.
(MAYBE_CALL_SOME_FUNCTION): New macro.
(thread_function): Call it.
* gdb.threads/schedlock.exp (get_args): Add description parameter,
and use it instead of a global counter. Adjust all callers.
(get_current_thread): Use "find current thread" for test message
here rather than having all callers pass down the same string.
(goto_loop): New procedure, factored out from ...
(my_continue): ... this.
(step_ten_loops): Change parameter from test message to command to
use. Adjust.
(list_count): Delete global.
(check_result): New procedure, factored out from duplicate top
level code.
(continue tests): Wrap in with_test_prefix.
(test_step): New procedure, factored out from duplicate top level
code.
(top level): Test "step" in combination with all scheduler-locking
modes. Test "next" in combination with all scheduler-locking
modes, and in combination with stepping over a function call or
not.
* gdb.threads/next-bp-other-thread.c: New file.
* gdb.threads/next-bp-other-thread.exp: New file.
Two modifications:
1. The addition of 2013 to the copyright year range for every file;
2. The use of a single year range, instead of potentially multiple
year ranges, as approved by the FSF.
report events from resumed threads.
* gdb.threads/schedlock.exp (get_args): Update to work for any
value of NUM.
(Top level): Report the number of threads that did not resume.
* gdb.threads/schedlock.exp: Remove assumption that all threads
will run in a particular small time slice. Also ensure we break
in one of the child threads rather than the main thread.
