From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2093 invoked by alias); 9 Nov 2009 15:31:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 2083 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Nov 2009 15:31:18 -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, 09 Nov 2009 15:31:13 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B42D110CE9; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 15:31:11 +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 82FC11065D; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 15:31:11 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1N7WD0-0003PR-AN; Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:31:10 -0500 Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:31:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Daniel Gutson Cc: Michael Snyder , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] gcore registers storing fix Message-ID: <20091109153110.GA12924@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Daniel Gutson , Michael Snyder , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" References: <4AF4A505.4010600@codesourcery.com> <4AF72404.1070808@vmware.com> <4AF82E4E.8000500@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AF82E4E.8000500@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2009-11/txt/msg00137.txt.bz2 On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 11:59:26AM -0300, Daniel Gutson wrote: > >You say in your comment, "The threads should be standing at a > >known function, rather than ??". I'm not sure how we can know > >that. The threads may have been stopped anywhere, and it's > >always possible to find a library with no symbols. > > What would you suggest? I could bound the check to the current frame. How about we check that at least one thread is in "thread2"? That's where gcore was used to create the core file. Except, there's already a test for that in the file. So maybe we do not need a new test. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery