>   Is there any chance that the attached could be reviewed over the next    few hours?
> 
> Apparently not :-(.  Anyway, I've looked at it now and it appears that
> GDB as it stands now isn't ready to cope with the abstraction of the
> lin-lwp layer as I intended it.  So I guess that until we overhaul the
> way GDB deals with threads, Daniels patch (sans the #ifdef) is the way
> to go.
> 
> (The US has holidays round this time?)
> 
> Thanks!  I'll merge it in, test it and then start the 5.2.91 process.

Er, no I wont :-(

The attached is the refind patch.  I added the comment:

+  /* NOTE: cagney/2002-12-02: This assumes that the target code can
+     directly transfer the register values into the register cache.
+     This works fine when there is a 1:1 mapping between light weight
+     process (LWP) (a.k.a. process on GNU/Linux) and the thread.  On
+     an N:1 (user-land threads), or N:M (combination of user-land and
+     LWP threading), this does not work.  An LWP can be sitting in the
+     thread context switch code and hence, the LWP's registers belong
+     to no thread.  */

however, with the patch applied, I see (and consistently, well 2 out of 
2, which is pretty amasing for the thread testsuite) the new failure:


gdb.threads/killed.exp: GDB exits after multi-threaded program exits messily

looking at the log file:

(gdb) run
Starting program: /home/cagney/gdb/native/gdb/testsuite/gdb.threads/killed
[New Thread 1024 (LWP 6831)]
[New Thread 2049 (LWP 6832)]
[New Thread 1026 (LWP 6833)]
Cannot find user-level thread for LWP 6833: generic error
(gdb) PASS: gdb.threads/killed.exp: run program to completion
quit
The program is running.  Exit anyway? (y or n) y
Cannot find thread 2049: generic error
(gdb) FAIL: gdb.threads/killed.exp: GDB exits after multi-threaded 
program exits
  messily (gdb/568)

Which doesn't occure when the patch isn't applied.

The test system was:
$ uname -a
Linux torrens 2.4.9-13 #1 Tue Oct 30 20:11:04 EST 2001 i686 unknown

I'm instead, for the moment, going to document this as a known problem. 
  (It's a maintainer command so normal users won't use it).

Andrew