From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4766 invoked by alias); 13 Dec 2001 23:46:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 4534 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2001 23:44:49 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Dec 2001 23:44:49 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16EfWz-0003It-00; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 18:44:49 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:46:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Don't use thread_db on corefiles Message-ID: <20011213184449.A12630@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20011213114847.A17989@nevyn.them.org> <3C190DDC.B32D6A7B@cygnus.com> <20011213152958.A30211@nevyn.them.org> <3C1931E3.E240B409@cygnus.com> <20011213180259.A11251@nevyn.them.org> <3C1933E7.E2B9DE87@cygnus.com> <20011213181006.A11536@nevyn.them.org> <3C193BA0.2030207@cygnus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3C193BA0.2030207@cygnus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00367.txt.bz2 On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 03:37:04PM -0800, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 03:04:07PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote: > > > >>OK. I'd like to see that patch when it's ready. > >>Do you use only lwp's, or do you use glibc/libpthread threads? > >>If you use library threads, are you saving their info in the > >>core file, or are you only saving the info for the lwp's? > > > > > >It's completely thread-package-agnostic. I dump all LWPs sharing the > >same VM, as a fairly reliable marker (I'd use 2.4 threadgroups, but > >LinuxThreads doesn't use them...) > > > Ok. So you're dumping out the raw data that libthread-db would use to > recreate the current thread state from the raw LWP state. > > > >So there is enough information there for lin-lwp to parse the threads, > >if we stubbed out its attempts to write, I expect. But since the > >current Linux threads model has one thread per process, I can simply > >use the corefile.c thread support instead, which I'd rather do. > > > Er, careful. I think lin-lwp should be fixed. lin-lwp should be > interpreting the raw LWP data translating it into user level threads. > (Why it writes to the target just sounds like a bug.) Strongly object. Why? Because thread_db is only usable natively! lin-lwp is not fit for cross or remote debugging and never can be. I am testing with MIPS cores on an x86-linux host. Right now it "works" because thread-db is not compiled in; if I had an --enable-targets=i386-linux,mipsel-linux it would be, though. If you want to break lin-lwp up into pieces such that one of them can do this, you might as well abandon using thread_db at all. The kernel has enough information to tell you about all the threads; it does so. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer