From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18736 invoked by alias); 13 Sep 2004 22:59:17 -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 18718 invoked from network); 13 Sep 2004 22:59:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 13 Sep 2004 22:59:16 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1C6zn0-0007Ir-L1; Mon, 13 Sep 2004 18:59:14 -0400 Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 22:59:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Snyder Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] Assume thread-db loaded over a live process Message-ID: <20040913225913.GA27645@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <4145A745.6090603@gnu.org> <4145EA88.2050401@redhat.com> <414615E4.8030003@gnu.org> <4146247B.20600@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4146247B.20600@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00221.txt.bz2 On Mon, Sep 13, 2004 at 10:51:39PM +0000, Michael Snyder wrote: > Andrew Cagney wrote: > >>Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> > >>>Hello, > >>> > >>>This patch changes: > >>> > >>>- /* We can only poke around if there actually is a child process. > >>>- If there is no child process alive, postpone the steps below > >>>- until one has been created. */ > >>>- if (proc_handle.pid != 0) > >>>- { > >>>- enable_thread_event_reporting (); > >>>- thread_db_find_new_threads (); > >>>- } > >>>+ enable_thread_event_reporting (); > >>>+ thread_db_find_new_threads (); > >>> > >>>this code is only executed when there is a child process so the guard > >>>isn't needed. Tested on GNU/Linux, no change in test results. > >>> > >>>ok? > >> > >> > >> > >>From memory, I think this code was to guard against the corefile case. > >>When you load a corefile, you may call thread_db_new_objfile, but > >>you won't have a child process. Is that no longer the case? Does > >>loading a corefile no longer cause this function to be called? > > > > > >This code is only executed when there is a child process. As you note, > >when loading a core file there is no child process (and as daniel > >pointed out, !target_has_execution holds) so this code is not executed. > > That's what I don't understand, Andrew. This code *used to* get > called for a corefile. What's changed? As far as I can see, > it will get called from symbol_file_add. In my existing July > build, it does. Um, is that July of _this_ year? There's a !target_has_execution check up above it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz