[v3,05/17] Embed the pending step-over chain in thread_info objects
Commit Message
In order to teach non-stop mode to do in-line step-overs (pause all
threads, remove breakpoint, single-step, reinsert breakpoint, restart
threads), we'll need to be able to queue in-line step over requests,
much like we queue displaced stepping (out-of-line) requests.
Actually, the queue should be the same -- threads wait for their turn
to step past something (breakpoint, watchpoint), doesn't matter what
technique we end up using when the step over actually starts.
I found that the queue management ends up simpler and more efficient
if embedded in the thread objects themselves. This commit converts
the existing displaced stepping queue to that. Later patches will
make the in-line step-overs code paths use it too.
gdb/ChangeLog:
2015-04-17 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
* gdbthread.h (struct thread_info) <step_over_prev,
step_over_next>: New fields.
(thread_step_over_chain_enqueue, thread_step_over_chain_remove)
(thread_step_over_chain_next, thread_is_in_step_over_chain): New
declarations.
* infrun.c (struct displaced_step_request): Delete.
(struct displaced_step_inferior_state) <step_request_queue>:
Delete field.
(displaced_step_in_progress): New function.
(displaced_step_prepare): Assert that trap_expected is set. Use
thread_step_over_chain_enqueue. Split starting a new displaced
step to ...
(start_step_over): ... this new function.
(resume): Assert the thread isn't waiting for a step over already.
(proceed): Assert the thread isn't waiting for a step over
already.
(infrun_thread_stop_requested): Adjust to remove threads from the
embedded step-over chain.
(handle_inferior_event) <fork/vfork>: Call start_step_over after
displaced_step_fixup.
(handle_signal_stop): Call start_step_over after
displaced_step_fixup.
* infrun.h (step_over_queue_head): New declaration.
* thread.c (step_over_chain_enqueue, step_over_chain_remove)
(thread_step_over_chain_next, thread_is_in_step_over_chain)
(thread_step_over_chain_enqueue)
(thread_step_over_chain_remove): New functions.
(delete_thread_1): Remove thread from the step-over chain.
v3:
More comments. The step-over chain is now a global instead of
being per-inferior. Previous versions had actually broken
multiple-processes displaced stepping at the same time. Added new
thread_is_in_step_over_chain predicate, and new
thread_step_over_chain_next helper function. Should make reading
the code a bit easier (following patches adjusted too).
---
gdb/gdbthread.h | 23 ++++++++++
gdb/infrun.c | 133 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------------------
gdb/infrun.h | 4 ++
gdb/thread.c | 84 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
4 files changed, 176 insertions(+), 68 deletions(-)
Comments
Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
Hi Pedro,
This patch looks good to me, some questions below.
> (displaced_step_prepare): Assert that trap_expected is set. Use
> thread_step_over_chain_enqueue. Split starting a new displaced
> step to ...
> (start_step_over): ... this new function.
If I read this patch correctly, start_step_over is moved from
displaced_step_fixup. That is why we call start_step_over after each
displaced_step_fixup.
> v3:
>
> More comments. The step-over chain is now a global instead of
> being per-inferior. Previous versions had actually broken
> multiple-processes displaced stepping at the same time. Added new
How does per-inferior step-over chain (or displaced stepping queue)
break multi-process displaced stepping?
> @@ -2972,35 +2983,17 @@ infrun_thread_stop_requested_callback (struct thread_info *info, void *arg)
> static void
> infrun_thread_stop_requested (ptid_t ptid)
> {
> - struct displaced_step_inferior_state *displaced;
> -
> - /* PTID was requested to stop. Remove it from the displaced
> - stepping queue, so we don't try to resume it automatically. */
> -
> - for (displaced = displaced_step_inferior_states;
> - displaced;
> - displaced = displaced->next)
> - {
> - struct displaced_step_request *it, **prev_next_p;
> -
> - it = displaced->step_request_queue;
> - prev_next_p = &displaced->step_request_queue;
> - while (it)
> - {
> - if (ptid_match (it->ptid, ptid))
> - {
> - *prev_next_p = it->next;
> - it->next = NULL;
> - xfree (it);
> - }
> - else
> - {
> - prev_next_p = &it->next;
> - }
> + struct thread_info *tp;
>
> - it = *prev_next_p;
> - }
> - }
> + /* PTID was requested to stop. Remove matching threads from the
> + step-over queue, so we don't try to resume them
> + automatically. */
I can understand the code below, except the comment "we don't try to
resume them automatically". It looks not necessary here.
> + ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS (tp)
> + if (ptid_match (tp->ptid, ptid))
> + {
> + if (thread_is_in_step_over_chain (tp))
> + thread_step_over_chain_remove (tp);
> + }
>
> iterate_over_threads (infrun_thread_stop_requested_callback, &ptid);
> }
> @@ -4051,6 +4044,9 @@ Cannot fill $_exitsignal with the correct signal number.\n"));
> that this operation also cleans up the child process for vfork,
> because their pages are shared. */
> displaced_step_fixup (ecs->ptid, GDB_SIGNAL_TRAP);
> + /* Start a new step-over in another thread if there's one
> + that needs it. */
> + start_step_over ();
The comment is confusing to me, especially the "one" and the "it". Do
you mean "in another thread if there is one thread that needs step-over"?
> @@ -323,6 +403,10 @@ delete_thread_1 (ptid_t ptid, int silent)
> if (!tp)
> return;
>
> + /* Dead threads don't need to step-over. Remove from queue. */
> + if (tp->step_over_next != NULL)
> + thread_step_over_chain_remove (tp);
> +
I am wondering how this can happen? A thread needs step-over becomes dead?
> /* If this is the current thread, or there's code out there that
> relies on it existing (refcount > 0) we can't delete yet. Mark
> it as exited, and notify it. */
Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
> (displaced_step_in_progress): New function.
This changelog entry can be removed as this function has been in FSF
tree already.
Pedro Alves writes:
> In order to teach non-stop mode to do in-line step-overs (pause all
> threads, remove breakpoint, single-step, reinsert breakpoint, restart
> threads), we'll need to be able to queue in-line step over requests,
> much like we queue displaced stepping (out-of-line) requests.
> Actually, the queue should be the same -- threads wait for their turn
> to step past something (breakpoint, watchpoint), doesn't matter what
> technique we end up using when the step over actually starts.
>
> I found that the queue management ends up simpler and more efficient
> if embedded in the thread objects themselves. This commit converts
> the existing displaced stepping queue to that. Later patches will
> make the in-line step-overs code paths use it too.
>
> gdb/ChangeLog:
> 2015-04-17 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
>
> * gdbthread.h (struct thread_info) <step_over_prev,
> step_over_next>: New fields.
> (thread_step_over_chain_enqueue, thread_step_over_chain_remove)
> (thread_step_over_chain_next, thread_is_in_step_over_chain): New
> declarations.
> * infrun.c (struct displaced_step_request): Delete.
> (struct displaced_step_inferior_state) <step_request_queue>:
> Delete field.
> (displaced_step_in_progress): New function.
> (displaced_step_prepare): Assert that trap_expected is set. Use
> thread_step_over_chain_enqueue. Split starting a new displaced
> step to ...
> (start_step_over): ... this new function.
> (resume): Assert the thread isn't waiting for a step over already.
> (proceed): Assert the thread isn't waiting for a step over
> already.
> (infrun_thread_stop_requested): Adjust to remove threads from the
> embedded step-over chain.
> (handle_inferior_event) <fork/vfork>: Call start_step_over after
> displaced_step_fixup.
> (handle_signal_stop): Call start_step_over after
> displaced_step_fixup.
> * infrun.h (step_over_queue_head): New declaration.
> * thread.c (step_over_chain_enqueue, step_over_chain_remove)
> (thread_step_over_chain_next, thread_is_in_step_over_chain)
> (thread_step_over_chain_enqueue)
> (thread_step_over_chain_remove): New functions.
> (delete_thread_1): Remove thread from the step-over chain.
>
> v3:
>
> More comments. The step-over chain is now a global instead of
> being per-inferior. Previous versions had actually broken
> multiple-processes displaced stepping at the same time. Added new
> thread_is_in_step_over_chain predicate, and new
> thread_step_over_chain_next helper function. Should make reading
> the code a bit easier (following patches adjusted too).
>...
>
> diff --git a/gdb/infrun.c b/gdb/infrun.c
> index 534ecef..f325a53 100644
> --- a/gdb/infrun.c
> +++ b/gdb/infrun.c
>...
> @@ -1855,24 +1842,44 @@ displaced_step_fixup (ptid_t event_ptid, enum gdb_signal signal)
> do_cleanups (old_cleanups);
>
> displaced->step_ptid = null_ptid;
> +}
>
> - /* Are there any pending displaced stepping requests? If so, run
> - one now. Leave the state object around, since we're likely to
> - need it again soon. */
> - while (displaced->step_request_queue)
> +/* Are there any pending step-over requests? If so, run one now. */
Hi.
Nit: IIUC "run one now" should read "run all we can now".
> +
> +static void
> +start_step_over (void)
> +{
>...
On 04/21/2015 10:52 AM, Yao Qi wrote:
> Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
>
>> (displaced_step_in_progress): New function.
>
> This changelog entry can be removed as this function has been in FSF
> tree already.
Good catch. Fixed.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves
On 04/21/2015 09:28 AM, Yao Qi wrote:
> Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
>
> Hi Pedro,
> This patch looks good to me, some questions below.
>
>> (displaced_step_prepare): Assert that trap_expected is set. Use
>> thread_step_over_chain_enqueue. Split starting a new displaced
>> step to ...
>> (start_step_over): ... this new function.
>
> If I read this patch correctly, start_step_over is moved from
> displaced_step_fixup. That is why we call start_step_over after each
> displaced_step_fixup.
Correct.
>
>> v3:
>>
>> More comments. The step-over chain is now a global instead of
>> being per-inferior. Previous versions had actually broken
>> multiple-processes displaced stepping at the same time. Added new
>
> How does per-inferior step-over chain (or displaced stepping queue)
> break multi-process displaced stepping?
v1 and v2 put the head of the step-over chain in the inferior
structure. start_step_over would look up the inferior structure of
the thread that just finished the step over, and try to
start a step-over of another thread of that inferior.
And if we had just finished an in-line step over, and the step-over that we
could start now is a displaced-step of _another_ inferior, in v2,
we wouldn't start it (because start_step_over_inferior wouldn't see that
thread).
And if we could start a displaced-step for a thread of the event
inferior, start_step_over would return immediately, instead
of trying to start a displaced step in another inferior too.
Even in-line step-overs were broken. E.g., say you have two inferiors,
each with one thread. Everything is stopped at a breakpoint that
must be stepped over. sched-multi is on, and the user does "continue"
to continue both inferiors. We'd start an in-line step-over for
inferior 1. Once that is done, we'd try starting a new step over
in the same inferior, and we'd miss that the other inferior
has a thread to step over too.
I went a bit in circles a trying to address that. The fact that for
in-line step overs we must stop all threads currently (we should be
able to stop only threads sharing the stepped thread's address space
instead, but we're not there yet), but not for displaced stepping
started making it too complicated. Related I also considered that we
could have more that one displaced step scratch pad slot per
inferior (e.g., "reserve" a few more bytes around the entry point).
Another thing I realized is that per-inferior queue breaks the
forward-progress-guarantee ordering, as we'd be giving priority
to start step overs on threads of the same inferior that had
just finished a step over, potentially starving threads of other
inferiors. The ordering issue is that there was no ordering
between the step-over chains of the multiple inferiors, so if we
left the chain per-inferior, we wouldn't know which inferior's
chain had the thread that was waiting for a step-over for the
longest time.
All in all, I realized that a single list is simpler and
more flexible.
>
>> @@ -2972,35 +2983,17 @@ infrun_thread_stop_requested_callback (struct thread_info *info, void *arg)
>> static void
>> infrun_thread_stop_requested (ptid_t ptid)
>> {
>> - struct displaced_step_inferior_state *displaced;
>> -
>> - /* PTID was requested to stop. Remove it from the displaced
>> - stepping queue, so we don't try to resume it automatically. */
>> -
>> - for (displaced = displaced_step_inferior_states;
>> - displaced;
>> - displaced = displaced->next)
>> - {
>> - struct displaced_step_request *it, **prev_next_p;
>> -
>> - it = displaced->step_request_queue;
>> - prev_next_p = &displaced->step_request_queue;
>> - while (it)
>> - {
>> - if (ptid_match (it->ptid, ptid))
>> - {
>> - *prev_next_p = it->next;
>> - it->next = NULL;
>> - xfree (it);
>> - }
>> - else
>> - {
>> - prev_next_p = &it->next;
>> - }
>> + struct thread_info *tp;
>>
>> - it = *prev_next_p;
>> - }
>> - }
>> + /* PTID was requested to stop. Remove matching threads from the
>> + step-over queue, so we don't try to resume them
>> + automatically. */
>
> I can understand the code below, except the comment "we don't try to
> resume them automatically". It looks not necessary here.
By "resumed automatically" I meant that if thread A is left in
the step-over chain (or currently in mainline in the displaced step queue)
it ends up stepped when all others threads in the step over queue
are done with their steps, even if thread A is supposed to be stopped.
But I agree it's not really necessary. I'll remove it.
>
>> + ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS (tp)
>> + if (ptid_match (tp->ptid, ptid))
>> + {
>> + if (thread_is_in_step_over_chain (tp))
>> + thread_step_over_chain_remove (tp);
>> + }
>>
>> iterate_over_threads (infrun_thread_stop_requested_callback, &ptid);
>> }
>> @@ -4051,6 +4044,9 @@ Cannot fill $_exitsignal with the correct signal number.\n"));
>> that this operation also cleans up the child process for vfork,
>> because their pages are shared. */
>> displaced_step_fixup (ecs->ptid, GDB_SIGNAL_TRAP);
>> + /* Start a new step-over in another thread if there's one
>> + that needs it. */
>> + start_step_over ();
>
> The comment is confusing to me, especially the "one" and the "it". Do
> you mean "in another thread if there is one thread that needs step-over"?
>
>> @@ -323,6 +403,10 @@ delete_thread_1 (ptid_t ptid, int silent)
>> if (!tp)
>> return;
>>
>> + /* Dead threads don't need to step-over. Remove from queue. */
>> + if (tp->step_over_next != NULL)
>> + thread_step_over_chain_remove (tp);
>> +
>
> I am wondering how this can happen? A thread needs step-over becomes dead?
It can happen if the process exits or disappears (target is closed, etc.)
while the thread was waiting for its turn.
Thanks,
Pedro Alves
On 04/22/2015 05:24 AM, Doug Evans wrote:
> > --- a/gdb/infrun.c
> > +++ b/gdb/infrun.c
> >...
> > @@ -1855,24 +1842,44 @@ displaced_step_fixup (ptid_t event_ptid, enum gdb_signal signal)
> > do_cleanups (old_cleanups);
> >
> > displaced->step_ptid = null_ptid;
> > +}
> >
> > - /* Are there any pending displaced stepping requests? If so, run
> > - one now. Leave the state object around, since we're likely to
> > - need it again soon. */
> > - while (displaced->step_request_queue)
> > +/* Are there any pending step-over requests? If so, run one now. */
>
> Hi.
>
> Nit: IIUC "run one now" should read "run all we can now".
Thanks, I did that change.
@@ -285,6 +285,12 @@ struct thread_info
/* Values that are stored as temporaries on stack while evaluating
expressions. */
value_vec *stack_temporaries;
+
+ /* Step-over chain. A thread is in the step-over queue if these are
+ non-NULL. If only a single thread is in the chain, then these
+ fields point to self. */
+ struct thread_info *step_over_prev;
+ struct thread_info *step_over_next;
};
/* Create an empty thread list, or empty the existing one. */
@@ -502,6 +508,23 @@ extern struct value *get_last_thread_stack_temporary (ptid_t);
extern int value_in_thread_stack_temporaries (struct value *, ptid_t);
+/* Add TP to the end of its inferior's pending step-over chain. */
+
+extern void thread_step_over_chain_enqueue (struct thread_info *tp);
+
+/* Remove TP from its inferior's pending step-over chain. */
+
+extern void thread_step_over_chain_remove (struct thread_info *tp);
+
+/* Return the next thread in the step-over chain starting at TP. NULL
+ if TP is the last entry in the chain. */
+
+extern struct thread_info *thread_step_over_chain_next (struct thread_info *tp);
+
+/* Return true if TP is in the step-over chain. */
+
+extern int thread_is_in_step_over_chain (struct thread_info *tp);
+
extern struct thread_info *thread_list;
#endif /* GDBTHREAD_H */
@@ -1223,6 +1223,15 @@ follow_exec (ptid_t ptid, char *execd_pathname)
matically get reset there in the new process.). */
}
+/* The queue of threads that need to do a step-over operation to get
+ past e.g., a breakpoint. What technique is used to step over the
+ breakpoint/watchpoint does not matter -- all threads end up in the
+ same queue, to maintain rough temporal order of execution, in order
+ to avoid starvation, otherwise, we could e.g., find ourselves
+ constantly stepping the same couple threads past their breakpoints
+ over and over, if the single-step finish fast enough. */
+struct thread_info *step_over_queue_head;
+
/* Bit flags indicating what the thread needs to step over. */
enum step_over_what
@@ -1419,12 +1428,6 @@ step_over_info_valid_p (void)
displaced step operation on it. See displaced_step_prepare and
displaced_step_fixup for details. */
-struct displaced_step_request
-{
- ptid_t ptid;
- struct displaced_step_request *next;
-};
-
/* Per-inferior displaced stepping state. */
struct displaced_step_inferior_state
{
@@ -1434,10 +1437,6 @@ struct displaced_step_inferior_state
/* The process this displaced step state refers to. */
int pid;
- /* A queue of pending displaced stepping requests. One entry per
- thread that needs to do a displaced step. */
- struct displaced_step_request *step_request_queue;
-
/* If this is not null_ptid, this is the thread carrying out a
displaced single-step in process PID. This thread's state will
require fixing up once it has completed its step. */
@@ -1669,6 +1668,9 @@ displaced_step_prepare (ptid_t ptid)
support displaced stepping. */
gdb_assert (gdbarch_displaced_step_copy_insn_p (gdbarch));
+ /* Nor if the thread isn't meant to step over a breakpoint. */
+ gdb_assert (tp->control.trap_expected);
+
/* Disable range stepping while executing in the scratch pad. We
want a single-step even if executing the displaced instruction in
the scratch buffer lands within the stepping range (e.g., a
@@ -1684,28 +1686,13 @@ displaced_step_prepare (ptid_t ptid)
{
/* Already waiting for a displaced step to finish. Defer this
request and place in queue. */
- struct displaced_step_request *req, *new_req;
if (debug_displaced)
fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog,
- "displaced: defering step of %s\n",
+ "displaced: deferring step of %s\n",
target_pid_to_str (ptid));
- new_req = xmalloc (sizeof (*new_req));
- new_req->ptid = ptid;
- new_req->next = NULL;
-
- if (displaced->step_request_queue)
- {
- for (req = displaced->step_request_queue;
- req && req->next;
- req = req->next)
- ;
- req->next = new_req;
- }
- else
- displaced->step_request_queue = new_req;
-
+ thread_step_over_chain_enqueue (tp);
return 0;
}
else
@@ -1855,24 +1842,44 @@ displaced_step_fixup (ptid_t event_ptid, enum gdb_signal signal)
do_cleanups (old_cleanups);
displaced->step_ptid = null_ptid;
+}
- /* Are there any pending displaced stepping requests? If so, run
- one now. Leave the state object around, since we're likely to
- need it again soon. */
- while (displaced->step_request_queue)
+/* Are there any pending step-over requests? If so, run one now. */
+
+static void
+start_step_over (void)
+{
+ struct thread_info *tp, *next;
+
+ for (tp = step_over_queue_head; tp != NULL; tp = next)
{
- struct displaced_step_request *head;
ptid_t ptid;
+ struct displaced_step_inferior_state *displaced;
struct regcache *regcache;
struct gdbarch *gdbarch;
CORE_ADDR actual_pc;
struct address_space *aspace;
+ struct inferior *inf = find_inferior_ptid (tp->ptid);
+
+ next = thread_step_over_chain_next (tp);
- head = displaced->step_request_queue;
- ptid = head->ptid;
- displaced->step_request_queue = head->next;
- xfree (head);
+ displaced = get_displaced_stepping_state (inf->pid);
+ /* If this inferior already has a displaced step in process,
+ don't start a new one. */
+ if (!ptid_equal (displaced->step_ptid, null_ptid))
+ continue;
+
+ thread_step_over_chain_remove (tp);
+
+ if (step_over_queue_head == NULL)
+ {
+ if (debug_infrun)
+ fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog,
+ "infrun: step-over queue now empty\n");
+ }
+
+ ptid = tp->ptid;
context_switch (ptid);
regcache = get_thread_regcache (ptid);
@@ -1935,6 +1942,10 @@ displaced_step_fixup (ptid_t event_ptid, enum gdb_signal signal)
/* This request was discarded. See if there's any other
thread waiting for its turn. */
}
+
+ /* A new displaced stepping sequence started. Maybe we can
+ start a displaced step on a thread of other process.
+ Continue looking. */
}
}
@@ -1955,10 +1966,6 @@ infrun_thread_ptid_changed (ptid_t old_ptid, ptid_t new_ptid)
{
if (ptid_equal (displaced->step_ptid, old_ptid))
displaced->step_ptid = new_ptid;
-
- for (it = displaced->step_request_queue; it; it = it->next)
- if (ptid_equal (it->ptid, old_ptid))
- it->ptid = new_ptid;
}
}
@@ -2137,6 +2144,8 @@ resume (enum gdb_signal sig)
tp->stepped_breakpoint = 0;
+ gdb_assert (!thread_is_in_step_over_chain (tp));
+
QUIT;
/* Depends on stepped_breakpoint. */
@@ -2667,6 +2676,8 @@ proceed (CORE_ADDR addr, enum gdb_signal siggnal)
/* Fill in with reasonable starting values. */
init_thread_stepping_state (tp);
+ gdb_assert (!thread_is_in_step_over_chain (tp));
+
if (addr == (CORE_ADDR) -1)
{
if (pc == stop_pc
@@ -2972,35 +2983,17 @@ infrun_thread_stop_requested_callback (struct thread_info *info, void *arg)
static void
infrun_thread_stop_requested (ptid_t ptid)
{
- struct displaced_step_inferior_state *displaced;
-
- /* PTID was requested to stop. Remove it from the displaced
- stepping queue, so we don't try to resume it automatically. */
-
- for (displaced = displaced_step_inferior_states;
- displaced;
- displaced = displaced->next)
- {
- struct displaced_step_request *it, **prev_next_p;
-
- it = displaced->step_request_queue;
- prev_next_p = &displaced->step_request_queue;
- while (it)
- {
- if (ptid_match (it->ptid, ptid))
- {
- *prev_next_p = it->next;
- it->next = NULL;
- xfree (it);
- }
- else
- {
- prev_next_p = &it->next;
- }
+ struct thread_info *tp;
- it = *prev_next_p;
- }
- }
+ /* PTID was requested to stop. Remove matching threads from the
+ step-over queue, so we don't try to resume them
+ automatically. */
+ ALL_NON_EXITED_THREADS (tp)
+ if (ptid_match (tp->ptid, ptid))
+ {
+ if (thread_is_in_step_over_chain (tp))
+ thread_step_over_chain_remove (tp);
+ }
iterate_over_threads (infrun_thread_stop_requested_callback, &ptid);
}
@@ -4051,6 +4044,9 @@ Cannot fill $_exitsignal with the correct signal number.\n"));
that this operation also cleans up the child process for vfork,
because their pages are shared. */
displaced_step_fixup (ecs->ptid, GDB_SIGNAL_TRAP);
+ /* Start a new step-over in another thread if there's one
+ that needs it. */
+ start_step_over ();
if (ecs->ws.kind == TARGET_WAITKIND_FORKED)
{
@@ -4283,6 +4279,7 @@ handle_signal_stop (struct execution_control_state *ecs)
the PC, so do it here, before we set stop_pc.) */
displaced_step_fixup (ecs->ptid,
ecs->event_thread->suspend.stop_signal);
+ start_step_over ();
/* If we either finished a single-step or hit a breakpoint, but
the user wanted this thread to be stopped, pretend we got a
@@ -196,4 +196,8 @@ extern void signal_catch_update (const unsigned int *);
systems. Use of symbolic signal names is strongly encouraged. */
enum gdb_signal gdb_signal_from_command (int num);
+/* The global queue of threads that need to do a step-over operation
+ to get past e.g., a breakpoint. */
+extern struct thread_info *step_over_queue_head;
+
#endif /* INFRUN_H */
@@ -307,6 +307,86 @@ add_thread (ptid_t ptid)
return add_thread_with_info (ptid, NULL);
}
+/* Add TP to the end of the step-over chain LIST_P. */
+
+static void
+step_over_chain_enqueue (struct thread_info **list_p, struct thread_info *tp)
+{
+ gdb_assert (tp->step_over_next == NULL);
+ gdb_assert (tp->step_over_prev == NULL);
+
+ if (*list_p == NULL)
+ {
+ *list_p = tp;
+ tp->step_over_prev = tp->step_over_next = tp;
+ }
+ else
+ {
+ struct thread_info *head = *list_p;
+ struct thread_info *tail = head->step_over_prev;
+
+ tp->step_over_prev = tail;
+ tp->step_over_next = head;
+ head->step_over_prev = tp;
+ tail->step_over_next = tp;
+ }
+}
+
+/* Remove TP from step-over chain LIST_P. */
+
+static void
+step_over_chain_remove (struct thread_info **list_p, struct thread_info *tp)
+{
+ gdb_assert (tp->step_over_next != NULL);
+ gdb_assert (tp->step_over_prev != NULL);
+
+ if (*list_p == tp)
+ {
+ if (tp == tp->step_over_next)
+ *list_p = NULL;
+ else
+ *list_p = tp->step_over_next;
+ }
+
+ tp->step_over_prev->step_over_next = tp->step_over_next;
+ tp->step_over_next->step_over_prev = tp->step_over_prev;
+ tp->step_over_prev = tp->step_over_next = NULL;
+}
+
+/* See gdbthread.h. */
+
+struct thread_info *
+thread_step_over_chain_next (struct thread_info *tp)
+{
+ struct thread_info *next = tp->step_over_next;
+
+ return (next == step_over_queue_head ? NULL : next);
+}
+
+/* See gdbthread.h. */
+
+int
+thread_is_in_step_over_chain (struct thread_info *tp)
+{
+ return (tp->step_over_next != NULL);
+}
+
+/* See gdbthread.h. */
+
+void
+thread_step_over_chain_enqueue (struct thread_info *tp)
+{
+ step_over_chain_enqueue (&step_over_queue_head, tp);
+}
+
+/* See gdbthread.h. */
+
+void
+thread_step_over_chain_remove (struct thread_info *tp)
+{
+ step_over_chain_remove (&step_over_queue_head, tp);
+}
+
/* Delete thread PTID. If SILENT, don't notify the observer of this
exit. */
static void
@@ -323,6 +403,10 @@ delete_thread_1 (ptid_t ptid, int silent)
if (!tp)
return;
+ /* Dead threads don't need to step-over. Remove from queue. */
+ if (tp->step_over_next != NULL)
+ thread_step_over_chain_remove (tp);
+
/* If this is the current thread, or there's code out there that
relies on it existing (refcount > 0) we can't delete yet. Mark
it as exited, and notify it. */