From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32743 invoked by alias); 13 Dec 2001 18:50:45 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 32717 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2001 18:50:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.cygnus.com) (205.180.231.71) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Dec 2001 18:50:44 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.cygnus.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B17383D60; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:50:39 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3C18F87F.2070601@cygnus.com> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 10:50:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.6) Gecko/20011207 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: thorpej@wasabisystems.com Cc: msnyder@cygnus.com, Eli Zaretskii , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFC] New command 'gcore' References: <3C17D3A0.DE140BFB@cygnus.com> <5567-Thu13Dec2001010400+0200-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <20011212152813.J28715@dr-evil.shagadelic.org> <3C18018E.9080902@cygnus.com> <20011212173359.L28715@dr-evil.shagadelic.org> <3C1808D3.1020504@cygnus.com> <20011212180444.M28715@dr-evil.shagadelic.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00351.txt.bz2 > On Wed, Dec 12, 2001 at 05:48:03PM -0800, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > But is that GDB's problem? If the procfs / ptrace / ttrace interface is > > lieing (returning fp registers for the wrong LWP/thread) then we've > > worse problems than the above :-) > > I suppose it all depends on what interface the backend uses to extract > the info from the target. GDB's thread code is implemented as (loosely speaking): thread model -> thread db library -> LWP / linux process / ... interface VS handling a core file: thread model -> thread db library -> core file interface provided the core file contains the same information as would have been returned by the LWP / linux process / ... interface, it should all be fine ...... i think, Andrew