From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6408 invoked by alias); 4 Jan 2002 22:49:31 -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 6366 invoked from network); 4 Jan 2002 22:49:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Jan 2002 22:49:29 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (reddwarf.cygnus.com [205.180.231.12]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA22077; Fri, 4 Jan 2002 14:49:26 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <3C36305C.A76C0191@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 14:49:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.76 [en] (X11; U; Linux 2.4.2-2smp i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Don't use thread_db on corefiles References: <20011213114847.A17989@nevyn.them.org> <3C35002F.D93E8D94@redhat.com> <20020104132606.D29086@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-01/txt/msg00044.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 05:06:55PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote: > > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > > > This patch fixes a really frustrating internal error when you open the > > > coredump of a multithreaded application. Depending on your kernel, either > > > the core has threads (corefile.c supports this just fine) or it doesn't. > > > Neither way will opening libthread_db work right. > > > > > > This patch isn't quite complete, because strange things happen when you > > > connect to a remote target too. But fixing that requires a little more > > > fiddling. > > > > > > Is this OK? > > > > Daniel, sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this. > > Now that I've had a chance to think about it, I agree that > > this is the right thing to do. Only I'd like to make it > > a separate "if" and just goto quit -- since it is not > > related to the "if" that's in there now. Is that OK > > with you? > > > > If you want you can just check in your patch as is, > > and I'll make mine as a separate change. > > Well, I'mn not sure this is right. It's a reasonable thing to attach > to a program, debug it live, then attach to a core of the same > program... at that point we need to go through the unpush_target steps > in just the same way as if the objfile was discarded, right? Umm... I had to think about this, but no. You can't debug a corefile until you kill or detach from the process that you're already debugging. When you kill or detach, that ought to take care of the unpush. I think we are going to uncover some problems as we go, which we will then have to take care of, but for the moment I do believe that this is the right thing to do. Michael