From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26088 invoked by alias); 7 Mar 2011 10:50:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 26079 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Mar 2011 10:50:16 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,TW_DB,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 Mar 2011 10:50:12 +0000 Received: (qmail 4495 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2011 10:50:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 7 Mar 2011 10:50:10 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Mark Kettenis Subject: Re: [PATCH] fix spurious FAIL in py-inferior.exp (x86-solaris) Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 11:02:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35-27-generic; KDE/4.6.1; x86_64; ; ) Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <1299238268-32142-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <20110307043923.GN30306@adacore.com> <201103070920.p279KhVO031798@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> In-Reply-To: <201103070920.p279KhVO031798@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201103071050.08867.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2011-03/txt/msg00441.txt.bz2 On Monday 07 March 2011 09:20:43, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 08:39:23 +0400 > > From: Joel Brobecker > > > > > On Friday 04 March 2011 12:18:01, Mark Kettenis wrote: > > > > That's a bug in the Solaris thread support. So... > > > > > > It's by design. Consequence of the M:N support, IIRC. > > > (I didn't design it!) > > > > So, are we OK with this patch? > > Not really. Solaris has not been using a M:N for quite some time now. Up until v8. I thought we still supported that version. > And I think GDB should present threads in a consistent way. Indeed. It raises the question of what is a "thread" from gdb's perspective. In my mind, it's the "currently active/visible sceduling entity granularity". dbx has separate commands to list threads and lwps. Maybe gdb should too. Bonus points if that is implemented with a proper model that works against remote targets too. -- Pedro Alves