From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2741 invoked by alias); 15 Feb 2009 18:22:50 -0000 Received: (qmail 2733 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Feb 2009 18:22:49 -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; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:22:38 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A2E610A32; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:22:35 +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 2CF6B106D8; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 18:22:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LYldR-0006Ui-Pc; Sun, 15 Feb 2009 13:22:33 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 03:19:00 -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: <20090215182233.GA24660@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> <20090204132851.GA9935@caradoc.them.org> <1234341068.13249.4.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20090211155300.GA22689@caradoc.them.org> <1234417406.6489.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1234417406.6489.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> 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/msg00327.txt.bz2 On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:13:26AM +0530, Vinay Sridhar wrote: > On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 10:53 -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 02:01:08PM +0530, Vinay Sridhar wrote: > > > Daniel, > > > > > > Sorry for the late response. I can confirm that attach_thread is not > > > called on the parent thread. The test case I had listed in my earlier > > > mail uses OMP for thread creation. Could that have something to do with > > > this? > > > > Well, it shouldn't; libgomp uses the normal POSIX thread interfaces. > > I assume you're using GCC -fopenmp, right? Or is this another OpenMP > > implementation? > > > > I used IBM's XLC compiler which has an inbuilt OpenMP implementation. Sorry for the delay, I missed your message. In that case, you need to determine whether it is using POSIX threads or whether it is using clone directly and ignoring the thread library. If it is not using the POSIX threads library, how is it handling TLS inside the threads? If it is using pthread_create, why didn't we get a notification about it? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery