Re: RFC: Unify the GNU/Linux native targets

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 09:36:25PM +0100, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> What does this mean for running GDB on older Linux kernels?  (Dropping
> support for older kernels isn't necessarily bad, as long as we still
> support Linux 2.4, but we should document it somehow).

Nothing at all.  There should be no functionality change with this
patch, nor does it imply removing anything.

It would make it simpler to add support for clone debugging without
libthread_db, if someone wanted to work on that, though - and that will
require 2.6.

> That isn't necessarily a bad thing; inf_ttrace() is also inherently
> multi-threaded.  I think the single-threaded/multi-threaded dichotomy
> really isn't the right way to view this.  It's more a
> kernel-threads/user-level-threads dichotomy.

Yes, I agree.

> Of course Linux is
> somewhere halfway between this, since it is (still) impossible to ask
> the kernel what LWP's belong to a particular process.

Eh?  No, that's not true with NPTL.

drow@caradoc:~% pidof firefox-bin    
8984
drow@caradoc:~% ls /proc/8984/task
18696/  6171/  6172/  6173/  8984/  8989/  8990/
drow@caradoc:~% grep Tgid /proc/6171/status
Tgid:   8984

> > Tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu.  Any comments?  Seems like progress?
> 
> I have one request; could you rename set_linux_target() to
> linux_nat_add_target().  I think that better expresses the fact that
> this function actually is the Linux native specific version of
> add_target.

Sure, I'll rename it.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery