From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28918 invoked by alias); 18 Jun 2003 23:33:40 -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 28724 invoked from network); 18 Jun 2003 23:33:40 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (146.82.138.56) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 18 Jun 2003 23:33:40 -0000 Received: from dsl093-172-017.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.172.17] helo=nevyn.them.org ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 19SmRf-0000C5-00; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 18:34:28 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 19SmQo-0000Ku-00; Wed, 18 Jun 2003 19:33:34 -0400 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 23:33:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Snyder Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Collect unexplained stopped threads in lin-lwp Message-ID: <20030618233334.GA1204@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20030618231609.GA394@nevyn.them.org> <3EF0F576.8040305@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3EF0F576.8040305@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg00611.txt.bz2 On Wed, Jun 18, 2003 at 04:27:50PM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >[Michael, you more or less approved this patch in December, but it's seen a > >few changes - linux_record_stopped_pid isn't a dummy any more.] > > > >This patch just accepts processes we aren't currently debugging which > >report > >a SIGSTOP, and throws them onto a list. Not very useful by itself, but my > >next patch will both cause this to happen (by enabling fork events) and > >empty the list when it receives fork events. I'm only submitting it > >separately, because it was the last meaningful piece I could break out. > > > >Is this OK? > > > > I realize these are not the same as LWPs, but is there any reason > you can't throw them in the existing LWP list, and then pull them > out discriminately? (if that's a word...) > > Just a suggestion. If there is a reason, then yes, approved. There is a reason. If I do that, we do things like expect attempt to resume them... but it's somewhat important that we not resume them until we've found their parent. Why is not yet apparent, but will be once we've started tracing vforks. We need to have both parent and child stopped at the point of contact in order to make breakpoints work right. Ideally GDB would just temporarily debug both processes. Some day, it'll be able to do that. But now, it can't. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer