From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17988 invoked by alias); 8 Jan 2003 16:18:20 -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 17791 invoked from network); 8 Jan 2003 16:17:56 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 8 Jan 2003 16:17:56 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA2F03EC2; Wed, 8 Jan 2003 11:17:45 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E1C4F29.2070003@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 16:18:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021211 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Snyder Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: threads and target-function-calls References: <3E1B7829.6B6E8BAF@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00324.txt.bz2 > Hey folks, > > Did you know that (at least on x86 linux), if you have a multi-thread > program and you execute a target function call, all the threads get to > run? Doesn't that seem like a bad thing? Wouldn't we really rather > only run the thread that is executing the target function call? Ha! That's just the start. Doing nested inferior function calls on alternative threads scrables the dummy frame cache: http://sources.redhat.com/cgi-bin/gnatsweb.pl?cmd=view%20audit-trail&database=gdb&pr=468 Andrew