* Did the fix for recycled thread ids uncover another bug?
@ 2004-06-14 22:58 Paul Gilliam
2004-06-14 23:12 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Paul Gilliam @ 2004-06-14 22:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches
Forgive me if this is not the place to post this. It's kind of a
follow-up to
a thread that was here a few months ago.
If I set a breakpoint in a thread function, then when that breakpoint is
hit,
things go bad. If instead of a breakpoint, I hit cntl-c while the thread
function is active, things work right.
I have seen this on Intel and ppc. (The Intel was recent, but not
current.
The ppc was current).
The strange thing is that the bug shows up on 32-bit ppc, but not 64-bit
ppc.
I will post a follow-up with the details if someone tells me this is the
right
mail-list.
-=# Paul Gilliam #=-
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Did the fix for recycled thread ids uncover another bug?
2004-06-14 22:58 Did the fix for recycled thread ids uncover another bug? Paul Gilliam
@ 2004-06-14 23:12 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-06-15 18:48 ` Michael Snyder
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2004-06-14 23:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Gilliam; +Cc: gdb-patches
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 03:57:57PM -0700, Paul Gilliam wrote:
> Forgive me if this is not the place to post this. It's kind of a
> follow-up to
> a thread that was here a few months ago.
>
> If I set a breakpoint in a thread function, then when that breakpoint is
> hit,
> things go bad. If instead of a breakpoint, I hit cntl-c while the thread
> function is active, things work right.
>
> I have seen this on Intel and ppc. (The Intel was recent, but not
> current.
> The ppc was current).
>
> The strange thing is that the bug shows up on 32-bit ppc, but not 64-bit
> ppc.
>
> I will post a follow-up with the details if someone tells me this is the
> right
> mail-list.
You should probably use gdb@ instead.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: Did the fix for recycled thread ids uncover another bug?
2004-06-14 23:12 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
@ 2004-06-15 18:48 ` Michael Snyder
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Michael Snyder @ 2004-06-15 18:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Jacobowitz; +Cc: Paul Gilliam, gdb-patches
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 03:57:57PM -0700, Paul Gilliam wrote:
>
>>Forgive me if this is not the place to post this. It's kind of a
>>follow-up to
>>a thread that was here a few months ago.
>>
>>If I set a breakpoint in a thread function, then when that breakpoint is
>>hit,
>>things go bad. If instead of a breakpoint, I hit cntl-c while the thread
>>function is active, things work right.
>>
>>I have seen this on Intel and ppc. (The Intel was recent, but not
>>current.
>>The ppc was current).
>>
>>The strange thing is that the bug shows up on 32-bit ppc, but not 64-bit
>>ppc.
>>
>>I will post a follow-up with the details if someone tells me this is the
>>right
>>mail-list.
>
>
> You should probably use gdb@ instead.
>
If you do, would you please include me in the Cc: list?
I'm sort of a semi-active threads maintainer. I'm curious
about the details of how "things go bad".
Michael
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-06-15 18:48 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2004-06-14 22:58 Did the fix for recycled thread ids uncover another bug? Paul Gilliam
2004-06-14 23:12 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2004-06-15 18:48 ` Michael Snyder
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox