From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25978 invoked by alias); 16 Feb 2009 15:04:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 25966 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Feb 2009 15:04:13 -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; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:04:07 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D98A4105A7; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:04:04 +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 BE99B104DC; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:04:04 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1LZ50t-00072y-FE; Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:04:03 -0500 Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2009 15:20:00 -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: <20090216150403.GA27072@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> <20090215182233.GA24660@caradoc.them.org> <1234779868.4861.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1234779868.4861.7.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/msg00332.txt.bz2 On Mon, Feb 16, 2009 at 03:54:28PM +0530, Vinay Sridhar wrote: > I was able to recreate this against a gcc compiled binary, so I guess > the omp implementation isnt an issue here. OK, then we're back to my earlier question: > 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