From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13029 invoked by alias); 7 Oct 2008 15:24:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 13020 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Oct 2008 15:24:12 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:23:37 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 61DFC2A9609; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 11:23:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id LaYLRUSpKc+O; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 11:23:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 480532A96CB; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 11:23:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 0B276E7ACD; Tue, 7 Oct 2008 08:23:35 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2008 15:24:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA/commit] Add support for DEC threads on alpha-osf Message-ID: <20081007152335.GK28138@adacore.com> References: <20081007130322.GD28143@adacore.com> <200810071508.32985.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20081007150154.GI28138@adacore.com> <200810071619.36274.pedro@codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200810071619.36274.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i 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: 2008-10/txt/msg00212.txt.bz2 > ... maybe proc_get_current_thread returns 0, and then later on in > procfs_wait we're adding the main thread again, but then with an > lwp id already. But what sounded very strange is that the LWP is > number 3, not 1. I need to look further into this, but would it help explain things if I said that the LWPs are added when I do "info threads", not when the process stops? > It's certainly fine the way it is to me, just an annoyance. I'm happy > to find out that we don't crash in this situation, so thanks > for that. :-) You're welcome. I will be sure to look for you if I do manage to crash the debugger ;-). -- Joel