Re: [PATCH] Fix usage of inferior_ptid in two thread_alive implementations

John Baldwin
2017-03-29T20:30:48Z

On Thursday, February 09, 2017 05:53:16 PM Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 02/09/2017 04:46 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
> > On 2017-02-08 07:40, Pedro Alves wrote:
> >> On 02/07/2017 09:24 PM, Simon Marchi wrote:
> >>> While inspecting some target code, I noticed that in these two
> >>> implementations of thread_alive, inferior_ptid is referenced directly
> >>> instead of using the ptid passed as parameters. I guess that it is
> >>> wrong, although I can't really test it in both cases.
> >>
> >> I can't test either, but it looks right to me.
> >
> > Soooo.. is this an approval :) ?
>
> OK by the end of the week to give a chance of area
> maintainers or interested folks to comment. E.g., Eli
> is the go32-nat.c maintainer and I don't mean to overstep,
> though that bit does look obvious to me. Mark or someone
> with BSD access could want to comment on the BSD bit. The
> latter you could perhaps test on the compile farm, if you
> have access.

[ Apologies for the late reply ]

I don't think any modern versions of either FreeBSD or OpenBSD
use bsd-uthread.c. The uthread target is for a thread implementation
that only provided threads in userland on top of a single process
(like "green" threads in the JDK). FreeBSD last shipped a release
with support for this thread model (FreeBSD 6.4) in 2008. I can't
speak to when OpenBSD stopped using user-based threads, but the
existence of kernel-based thread support in the obsd-nat target
implies it isn't used anymore either. For FreeBSD at least I think
it would be fine to remove bsd-uthread.c.

(I should also send a patch in to remove FreeBSD/alpha as that
platform was retired at around the same time. The last release
to support alpha was 6.3 also released in 2008.)

--
John Baldwin