Mirror of the gdb-patches mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
To: "J. Johnston" <jjohnstn@redhat.com>
Cc: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@chello.nl>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: RFA: Patch for corefile support
Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 23:39:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20030203233859.GA28591@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3E3EF40B.4020305@redhat.com>

On Mon, Feb 03, 2003 at 05:58:19PM -0500, J. Johnston wrote:
> 
> 
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 02:22:02PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> >
> >>"J. Johnston" <jjohnstn@redhat.com> writes:
> >>
> >>
> >>>The attached patch fixes a problem in gdb when a corefile is read in
> >>>after a multithreaded application has been debugged.  What happens is 
> >>>that
> >>>the thread-db and lin-lwp layers are still around and run into internal
> >>>errors.
> >>>
> >>>The solution is simply to unpush the thread-db ops in its mourn_inferior
> >>>routine.  If a corefile gets loaded, there is no thread-db to interfere.
> >>>If another multi-threaded app gets loaded, the thread_db_new_objfile is
> >>>designed to bring back the thread-db layer as needed.
> >>>
> >>>This fix solves another failure in the killed.exp testsuite as well.
> >>>
> >>>Ok to commit?
> >>
> >>Sorry, no.  AFAICT this will break debugging programs that are
> >>statically linked against libpthread.  As a minimum, this code should
> >>check keep_thread_db before unpushing the target, but even then, I'm
> >>not sure whether this is really OK.
> >
> >
> >Programs statically linked against libpthread are already broken.  I
> >have a patch to fix it, but it's so gross that I haven't posted it; I
> >still can't think of a good way to do it.
> >
> >Given the way GDB treats targets, we seem to be waffling; someone fixes
> >core file support and breaks static binaries, or vice versa.
> >
> 
> So, is there a scenario where my patch would be wrong?  I am seeing what you
> discussed.  Statically linked multi-threaded programs don't work with gdb
> because we never set up the thread_db_ops layer to begin with
> (thread_db_new_objfile never gets called with a non-null objfile with
> the target_has_execution flag on).

I don't know.  The whole way in which thread_db is initialized right
now is a little bit confusing.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer


  reply	other threads:[~2003-02-03 23:39 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2003-01-27 23:05 J. Johnston
2003-02-01 13:22 ` Mark Kettenis
2003-02-01 17:00   ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-02-03 22:58     ` J. Johnston
2003-02-03 23:39       ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2003-02-18 17:31         ` J. Johnston
2003-06-02 19:22 ` Michael Snyder
2003-06-03 20:03   ` J. Johnston

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20030203233859.GA28591@nevyn.them.org \
    --to=drow@mvista.com \
    --cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
    --cc=jjohnstn@redhat.com \
    --cc=kettenis@chello.nl \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox