From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-13347-listarch-gdb-patches=sourceware.cygnus.com@sources.redhat.com>
Received: (qmail 28943 invoked by alias); 13 Mar 2002 18:18:48 -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 28880 invoked from network); 13 Mar 2002 18:18:47 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 13 Mar 2002 18:18:47 -0000
Received: from cygnus.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
	id 9E90D3EA2; Wed, 13 Mar 2002 13:18:45 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <3C8F9805.8090601@cygnus.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 10:18:00 -0000
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.8) Gecko/20020210
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
Cc: David Taylor <taylor@candd.org>,
	Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFA/RFC] Don't use lwp_from_thread() in thread_db_wait()
References: <20020312112331.A24963@nevyn.them.org> <200203131737.MAA11028@houston.candd.org> <20020313124632.A14198@nevyn.them.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2002-03/txt/msg00199.txt.bz2

> On Wed, Mar 13, 2002 at 12:37:08PM -0500, David Taylor wrote:
> 
>> > Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 11:23:31 -0500
>> > From: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>
> 
>> 
> 
>> > Yes, that could probably be arranged.  Someday we should talk to a
>> > vendor of an M:N threads package and see what we have to work with.  I
>> > don't know of any offhand besides NGPT.
> 
>> 
>> If I understand you correctly, then: Solaris.
> 
> 
> Is it really?

Yep.

> To clarify, LinuxThreads has one thread per process; IBM's NGPT has
> multiple threads per process, but still multiple processes.  I was
> under the impression that Solaris LWPs would have all threads in one
> process.

That was their first attempt (if I remember right).

> (except of course the terminology gets fuzzy here.  One "process" in
> Solaris includes multiple LWPs which can be executing at the same time. 
> If my understanding above is correct it might be more appropriate to
> call Solaris one-thread-per-LWP).

enjoy,
Andrew