From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28294 invoked by alias); 6 Jul 2007 11:58:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 28285 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Jul 2007 11:58:16 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:58:06 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 64FB2982CE; Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:58:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3B3B982A5; Fri, 6 Jul 2007 11:58:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1I6mRm-0002lF-Qc; Fri, 06 Jul 2007 07:58:02 -0400 Date: Fri, 06 Jul 2007 11:58:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Mark Kettenis Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [commit] Fix bsd-uthread.c Message-ID: <20070706115802.GA10070@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200707061139.l66BdnrB022359@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200707061139.l66BdnrB022359@brahms.sibelius.xs4all.nl> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.15 (2007-04-09) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-07/txt/msg00105.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jul 06, 2007 at 01:39:49PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > This fixes the problem with threads debugging I reported a few days > ago. The problem is that the code reads from target memory to look up > the thread ID. This used to be ago, since if reading from the live > target failed, it would read from the object file, and things would be > ok (even though what it read from the object file was probably just a > bunch of zeroes). However, with the change that Daniel recently made, > that no longer happens, error() gets called, and we end up in a > hopelessly confused state. This is at the tail end of wait, i.e. before we've popped the current target, right? Thanks, I see why it broke now. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery