From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24160 invoked by alias); 20 Feb 2009 04:01:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 23958 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Feb 2009 04:01:34 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from e23smtp01.au.ibm.com (HELO e23smtp01.au.ibm.com) (202.81.31.143) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 04:01:29 +0000 Received: from d23relay02.au.ibm.com (d23relay02.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.244]) by e23smtp01.au.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n1K416nj007656 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:01:06 +1100 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (d23av04.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.139]) by d23relay02.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id n1K41QK41167580 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:01:26 +1100 Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av04.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n1K41Pfr028171 for ; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:01:25 +1100 Received: from [9.124.124.72] ([9.124.124.72]) by d23av04.au.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n1K41MvB028057; Fri, 20 Feb 2009 15:01:23 +1100 Subject: Re: [RFC][Patch] Fix gdb failure to access tls data for parent thread From: Vinay Sridhar To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com In-Reply-To: <20090217132951.GA32041@caradoc.them.org> References: <200901091416.10563.vinay@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090204132851.GA9935@caradoc.them.org> <1234341068.13249.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090211155300.GA22689@caradoc.them.org> <1234417406.6489.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090215182233.GA24660@caradoc.them.org> <1234779868.4861.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090216150403.GA27072@caradoc.them.org> <1234849907.4215.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090217132951.GA32041@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2009 08:31:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1235102359.4719.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-02/txt/msg00403.txt.bz2 On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 08:29 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:21:47AM +0530, Vinay Sridhar wrote: > > On Mon, 2009-02-16 at 10:04 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 03:54:28PM +0530, Vinay Sridhar wrote: > > > > I was able to recreate this against a gcc compiled binary, so I guess > > > > the omp implementation isnt an issue here. > > > > > > OK, then we're back to my earlier question: > > > > > > > The private info is set in attach_thread. That is supposed to be > > > > called for every thread; how did you get a thread on the thread list > > > > that did not have this routine called? A breakpoint on add_thread > > > > and add_thread_with_info will probably figure this out. > > > > > > > Same response. add_thread_with_info () is not called for parent thread. > > That doesn't answer the question, sorry. At some point, add_thread > (not add_thread_with_info) must have been called. Where did that > happen? > > > Could this be related? : > > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-03/msg00266.html > > I don't think so. > I placed a break on "add_thread" as you suggested. It doesn't seem to be hit at all, for any of the threads. BTW, I'm using GNU gdb (GDB) 6.8.50.20090216.