From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19304 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2006 20:40:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 19282 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Feb 2006 20:40:42 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:40:39 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FDpAb-0007Nl-EA; Mon, 27 Feb 2006 15:40:37 -0500 Date: Mon, 27 Feb 2006 20:51:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: Unify the GNU/Linux native targets Message-ID: <20060227204037.GA28320@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20060227192807.GA25537@nevyn.them.org> <200602272036.k1RKaPiX030330@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200602272036.k1RKaPiX030330@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-02/txt/msg00500.txt.bz2 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