Re: RFA[threads]: Fork event updates, part the thirteenth

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>]

On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 07:50:55PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 03:53:52PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote:
> > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > > 
> > > Now is where it starts to get interesting.  Michael, I mentioned this patch
> > > to you at lunch last week.  If you take a short-lived program, run it, and
> > > detach it, and run it again, you'll see the exit of the _previous_ copy.
> > > Then GDB gets hopelessly confused.  I have a testcase for this which I'll
> > > post in a moment.
> > > 
> > > The reason it's included here is that that's essentially what happens if you
> > > are using "set follow-fork-mode child".  We detach from the parent, which
> > > exits, confusing GDB.
> > > 
> > > Is this OK?
> > 
> > Hi Dan, 
> > 
> > Please excuse the delay.  This seems OK.  In child_wait, 
> > would it be possible to add a check to see if the exiting
> > process is in our lwp list?
> 
> I _think_ that child_wait will never be called if there is anything in
> the LWP list; if we have LWPs, we'll have pushed thread_db onto the
> stack, and we'll go to lin_lwp_wait instead if thre are any LWPs.  But
> I'm sleepy, so I may be missing something; I'll sit on this and look at
> it again tomorrow :)
> 
> Thanks.

Having convinced myself of this, I've checked in the patch as-is. 
Thanks.  Now for the testcase it fixes.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer