From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32565 invoked by alias); 13 Dec 2001 23:37:15 -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 32513 invoked from network); 13 Dec 2001 23:37:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.cygnus.com) (205.180.231.71) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Dec 2001 23:37:09 -0000 Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.cygnus.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ABB93D60; Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:37:04 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3C193BA0.2030207@cygnus.com> Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 15:37:00 -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: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Michael Snyder , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Don't use thread_db on corefiles References: <20011213114847.A17989@nevyn.them.org> <3C190DDC.B32D6A7B@cygnus.com> <20011213152958.A30211@nevyn.them.org> <3C1931E3.E240B409@cygnus.com> <20011213180259.A11251@nevyn.them.org> <3C1933E7.E2B9DE87@cygnus.com> <20011213181006.A11536@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00366.txt.bz2 > On Thu, Dec 13, 2001 at 03:04:07PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote: > >> OK. I'd like to see that patch when it's ready. >> Do you use only lwp's, or do you use glibc/libpthread threads? >> If you use library threads, are you saving their info in the >> core file, or are you only saving the info for the lwp's? > > > It's completely thread-package-agnostic. I dump all LWPs sharing the > same VM, as a fairly reliable marker (I'd use 2.4 threadgroups, but > LinuxThreads doesn't use them...) Ok. So you're dumping out the raw data that libthread-db would use to recreate the current thread state from the raw LWP state. > So there is enough information there for lin-lwp to parse the threads, > if we stubbed out its attempts to write, I expect. But since the > current Linux threads model has one thread per process, I can simply > use the corefile.c thread support instead, which I'd rather do. Er, careful. I think lin-lwp should be fixed. lin-lwp should be interpreting the raw LWP data translating it into user level threads. (Why it writes to the target just sounds like a bug.) Have a look at the discussioin started by Michael on a gcore command. Andrew