From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26099 invoked by alias); 4 Feb 2009 13:29:00 -0000 Received: (qmail 26091 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Feb 2009 13:29:00 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:28:54 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2C3310A46; Wed, 4 Feb 2009 13:28:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 955ED10A42; Wed, 4 Feb 2009 13:28:52 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LUhoB-0002g4-SW; Wed, 04 Feb 2009 08:28:51 -0500 Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 13:29:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Vinay Sridhar Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [RFC][Patch] Fix gdb failure to access tls data for parent thread Message-ID: <20090204132851.GA9935@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Vinay Sridhar , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, luisgpm@linux.vnet.ibm.com References: <200901091416.10563.vinay@linux.vnet.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200901091416.10563.vinay@linux.vnet.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: 2009-02/txt/msg00091.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jan 09, 2009 at 02:16:09PM +0530, Vinay Sridhar wrote: > The reason for this is gdb does not fill in the private field of the > thread_info structure of the parent thread. The below patch sets up > this private field before the child threads are added to gdb's list. The private info is set in attach_thread. That is supposed to be called for every thread; how did you get a thread on the thread list that did not have this routine called? A breakpoint on add_thread and add_thread_with_info will probably figure this out. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery