RE: [PATCH v3 1/1] gdb: avoid conversion of SIGSEGV to SIGTRAP on user breakpoints

Hi Baris,

Yes, I posted V4 just now.

Thanks
Klaus

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Aktemur, Baris <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, July 7, 2026 8:36 AM
> To: Gerlicher, Klaus <[email protected]>; gdb-
> [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: [PATCH v3 1/1] gdb: avoid conversion of SIGSEGV to SIGTRAP on
> user breakpoints
> 
> AMD General
> 
> Hi Klaus,
> 
> On Tuesday, May 19, 2026 12:30 PM, Gerlicher, Klaus wrote:
> > Hi Baris,
> >
> > Thanks a lot for noticing this, indeed it's an oversight.
> >
> > I'll try the target_thread_architecture (ecs->event_thread->ptid)
> modificiation.
> 
> Any update on this?
> 
> Regards,
> -Baris
> 
> > Thanks
> > Klaus
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Aktemur, Baris <[email protected]>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 13, 2026 10:20 AM
> > > To: Gerlicher, Klaus <[email protected]>; gdb-
> > > [email protected]
> > > Cc: [email protected]
> > > Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 1/1] gdb: avoid conversion of SIGSEGV to SIGTRAP
> on
> > > user breakpoints
> > >
> > > AMD General
> > >
> > > Hi Klaus,
> > >
> > > This is a reply to
> > >
> > >  https://inbox.sourceware.org/gdb-patches/[email protected]/
> > >
> > > It seems the patch is not merged to upstream master, yet.  I assume it's
> > > simply an oversight.  Could you take a look?
> > >
> > > I have one comment below:
> > >
> > > > diff --git a/gdb/infrun.c b/gdb/infrun.c
> > > > index 43eca814e29..eb34aed09e0 100644
> > > > --- a/gdb/infrun.c
> > > > +++ b/gdb/infrun.c
> > > > @@ -6138,7 +6138,9 @@ handle_inferior_event (struct
> > > execution_control_state *ecs)
> > > >       stack.  */
> > > >    if (ecs->ws.kind () == TARGET_WAITKIND_STOPPED
> > > >        && (ecs->ws.sig () == GDB_SIGNAL_ILL
> > > > -       || ecs->ws.sig () == GDB_SIGNAL_SEGV
> > > > +       || (ecs->ws.sig () == GDB_SIGNAL_SEGV
> > > > +           && !gdbarch_imprecise_pagefault_reporting
> > > > +             (current_inferior ()->arch ()))
> > >
> > > In a case like AMD GPUs, the inferior contains a mixture of CPU and GPU
> > > threads.
> > > The imprecise reporting property would depend on the kind of the thread.
> > > Therefore,
> > > instead of
> > >
> > >   current_inferior ()->arch ()
> > >
> > > I'd propose
> > >
> > >   target_thread_architecture (ecs->event_thread->ptid)
> > >
> > > That should still give the same behavior for Intel's case because by default a
> > > process stratum target returns the inferior's arch.
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > -Baris
> > >
> >
> > Intel Deutschland GmbH
> > Registered Address: Dornacher Strasse 1, 85622 Feldkirchen, Germany
> > Tel: +49 89 991 430, www.intel.de
> > Managing Directors: Harry Demas, Jeffrey Schneiderman, Yin Chong Sorrell
> > Chairperson of the Supervisory Board: Nicole Lau
> > Registered Seat: Munich
> > Commercial Register: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 186928