From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-11325-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 2082 invoked by alias); 15 Dec 2001 02:36:47 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sources.redhat.com>
List-Archive: <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com
Received: (qmail 2061 invoked from network); 15 Dec 2001 02:36:46 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.cygnus.com) (216.138.202.10)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Dec 2001 02:36:46 -0000
Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.cygnus.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id E1FE33D60; Fri, 14 Dec 2001 21:36:39 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <3C1AB737.3080106@cygnus.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 18:36:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
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: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>,
	Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
Cc: Michael Snyder <msnyder@cygnus.com>,
	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> <3C193D13.AED0F79F@cygnus.com> <20011213185635.A12902@nevyn.them.org> <3C19543A.2580D12E@cygnus.com> <20011213232557.B20920@nevyn.them.org> <3C1AB5EE.1000506@cygnus.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2001-12/txt/msg00392.txt.bz2

> Hmm, perhaps it is a native GDB looking at a threaded core file?  In that case, yes the thread-db should drop its self on top.  If that is causing an internal error then there is something messed up that should be fixed.


PS:

Something I've wondered about is a command of some sort to tell GDB to 
not let the thread target interceed the ptrace / core / procfs / remote 
target so that, selectively the user could debug either the raw or the 
abstracted threaded target.

As a second mechanism, a way of moving between the threaded and ptrace / 
... target stratum.

Andrew