From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22719 invoked by alias); 11 Oct 2004 17:12:11 -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 22704 invoked from network); 11 Oct 2004 17:12:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 11 Oct 2004 17:12:10 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.34 #1 (Debian)) id 1CH3iU-0005Ce-Ch; Mon, 11 Oct 2004 13:12:10 -0400 Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 17:12:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, msnyder@redhat.com Subject: Re: [rfa] Include the LWP in thread-db's PTIDs Message-ID: <20041011171209.GA32469@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com, msnyder@redhat.com References: <20041010213630.GA8218@nevyn.them.org> <416AA623.7080304@gnu.org> <20041011153838.GA26796@nevyn.them.org> <416AB1EE.9000706@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <416AB1EE.9000706@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00198.txt.bz2 On Mon, Oct 11, 2004 at 12:16:46PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >I hadn't thought about the core issue; I'll do some pondering. However, > >I don't think your comment is quite right. Thread_db can not be > >layered over core files, we've already decided that - it's too iffy to > >find the right thread_db, not to mention cross-debugging issues. And > >similarly we can't use it for remote thread debugging. Thread_db only > >makes any sense on top of local, running, native threads. > > "we"'ve definitly not decided this. > > Long ago you committed a hack to stop GDB layering thread-db over core > files. It was to stop GDB barfing on native GNU/Linux core files. It > had the side effect of breaking threads on all other systems, namely > solaris. What keeps being pointing out is that thread-db should be > loaded over a core file, and not doing it is broken. > > If we try it and it barfs, we've a bug. But what we've not got is an > excuse for hobble native support (just because embedeed debuging is "iffy"). Huh? It was a change to thread-db.c which has never been used for Solaris, so I haven't got any idea what you are talking about. I did not break Solaris threads. Also, it was an approved patch. Michael responded at the end of the thread saying that he agreed it was the right thing not to use thread_db on core files. Yes, there was a lot of disagreement before that; but before the patch was committed the thread-db.c maintainer agreed that we should not to use thread_db in this case. I think I'm justified in saying that "we" have decided this. -- Daniel Jacobowitz