From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5075 invoked by alias); 4 Jan 2002 18:25:32 -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 5034 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2002 18:25:31 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Jan 2002 18:25:31 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.33 #1 (Debian)) id 16MZ2c-0006it-00; Fri, 04 Jan 2002 13:26:06 -0500 Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 10:25:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Snyder Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Don't use thread_db on corefiles Message-ID: <20020104132606.D29086@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20011213114847.A17989@nevyn.them.org> <3C35002F.D93E8D94@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3C35002F.D93E8D94@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.23i X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00030.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 05:06:55PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > This patch fixes a really frustrating internal error when you open the > > coredump of a multithreaded application. Depending on your kernel, either > > the core has threads (corefile.c supports this just fine) or it doesn't. > > Neither way will opening libthread_db work right. > > > > This patch isn't quite complete, because strange things happen when you > > connect to a remote target too. But fixing that requires a little more > > fiddling. > > > > Is this OK? > > Daniel, sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this. > Now that I've had a chance to think about it, I agree that > this is the right thing to do. Only I'd like to make it > a separate "if" and just goto quit -- since it is not > related to the "if" that's in there now. Is that OK > with you? > > If you want you can just check in your patch as is, > and I'll make mine as a separate change. Well, I'mn not sure this is right. It's a reasonable thing to attach to a program, debug it live, then attach to a core of the same program... at that point we need to go through the unpush_target steps in just the same way as if the objfile was discarded, right? -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer