From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16225 invoked by alias); 4 Aug 2008 18:30:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 16208 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Aug 2008 18:30:12 -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; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 18:29:33 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4862983A9; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:29:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 706319839F; Mon, 4 Aug 2008 18:29:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KQ4oE-0006Cf-8Q; Mon, 04 Aug 2008 14:29:30 -0400 Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2008 18:30:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Ulrich Weigand Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [gdbserver] Problems trying to resume dead threads Message-ID: <20080804182930.GA23825@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ulrich Weigand , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20080804134000.GA17925@caradoc.them.org> <200808041823.m74INFCJ008291@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200808041823.m74INFCJ008291@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-08/txt/msg00057.txt.bz2 On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 08:23:14PM +0200, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Hmm, still fails with my Cell test case like this: > writing register 25: No such process > ptrace(regsets_fetch_inferior_registers) PID=14241: No such process > reading register 0: No such process :-( It must depend on where you are in gdbserver when the process is killed. I hadn't thought about that. Perhaps we should downgrade all these errors to warnings for errno == ESRCH? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery