|
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.
|
|
This is more of a readline/terminal issue than a Python one.
PR17372 is a regression in 7.8 caused by the fix for PR17072:
commit 0017922d0292d8c374584f6100874580659c9973
Author: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Date: Mon Jul 14 19:55:32 2014 +0100
Background execution + pagination aborts readline/gdb
gdb_readline_wrapper_line removes the handler after a line is
processed. Usually, we'll end up re-displaying the prompt, and that
reinstalls the handler. But if the output is coming out of handling
a stop event, we don't re-display the prompt, and nothing restores the
handler. So the next input wakes up the event loop and calls into
readline, which aborts.
...
gdb/
2014-07-14 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
PR gdb/17072
* top.c (gdb_readline_wrapper_line): Tweak comment.
(gdb_readline_wrapper_cleanup): If readline is enabled, reinstall
the input handler callback.
The problem is that installing the input handler callback also preps
the terminal, putting it in raw mode and with echo disabled, which is
bad if we're going to call a command that assumes cooked/canonical
mode, and echo enabled, like in the case of the PR, Python's
interactive shell. Another example I came up with that doesn't depend
on Python is starting a subshell with "(gdb) shell /bin/sh" from a
multi-line command. Tests covering both these examples are added.
The fix is to revert the original fix for PR gdb/17072, and instead
restore the callback handler after processing an asynchronous target
event.
Furthermore, calling rl_callback_handler_install when we already have
some input in readline's line buffer discards that input, which is
obviously a bad thing to do while the user is typing. No specific
test is added for that, because I first tried calling it even if the
callback handler was still installed and that resulted in hundreds of
failures in the testsuite.
gdb/
2014-10-29 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
PR python/17372
* event-top.c (change_line_handler): Call
gdb_rl_callback_handler_remove instead of
rl_callback_handler_remove.
(callback_handler_installed): New global.
(gdb_rl_callback_handler_remove, gdb_rl_callback_handler_install)
(gdb_rl_callback_handler_reinstall): New functions.
(display_gdb_prompt): Call gdb_rl_callback_handler_remove and
gdb_rl_callback_handler_install instead of
rl_callback_handler_remove and rl_callback_handler_install.
(gdb_disable_readline): Call gdb_rl_callback_handler_remove
instead of rl_callback_handler_remove.
* event-top.h (gdb_rl_callback_handler_remove)
(gdb_rl_callback_handler_install)
(gdb_rl_callback_handler_reinstall): New declarations.
* infrun.c (reinstall_readline_callback_handler_cleanup): New
cleanup function.
(fetch_inferior_event): Install it.
* top.c (gdb_readline_wrapper_line) Call
gdb_rl_callback_handler_remove instead of
rl_callback_handler_remove.
(gdb_readline_wrapper_cleanup): Don't call
rl_callback_handler_install.
gdb/testsuite/
2014-10-29 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
PR python/17372
* gdb.python/python.exp: Test a multi-line command that spawns
interactive Python.
* gdb.base/multi-line-starts-subshell.exp: New file.
|
