From: "J. Johnston" <jjohnstn@redhat.com>
To: Michael Snyder <msnyder@redhat.com>
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: RFA: Patch for corefile support
Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 20:03:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3EDCFEF8.30703@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3EDBA406.7F38D18E@redhat.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1307 bytes --]
Michael Snyder wrote:
> "J. Johnston" wrote:
>
>>The attached patch fixes a problem in gdb when a corefile is read in
>>after a multithreaded application has been debugged. What happens is that
>>the thread-db and lin-lwp layers are still around and run into internal
>>errors.
>>
>>The solution is simply to unpush the thread-db ops in its mourn_inferior
>>routine. If a corefile gets loaded, there is no thread-db to interfere.
>>If another multi-threaded app gets loaded, the thread_db_new_objfile is
>>designed to bring back the thread-db layer as needed.
>>
>>This fix solves another failure in the killed.exp testsuite as well.
>>
>>Ok to commit?
>>
>>-- Jeff J.
>
>
> Hi Jeff,
>
> After reviewing the discussion, why don't you add a test for
> "keep_thread_db" as suggested by Mark, and check this in?
> Perhaps with a comment explaining that the debugging of
> statically-linked threaded programs is currently broken, but
> this will preserve sanity in case it is ever fixed.
>
> Michael
>
>
Thanks Michael. The attached patch has been checked in with the following
ChangeLog.
2003-06-03 Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@redhat.com>
* thread-db.c (thread_db_mourn_inferior): Unpush thread target
layer if not dealing with a statically-linked threaded program.
-- Jeff J.
[-- Attachment #2: thread-db.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 842 bytes --]
Index: thread-db.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/thread-db.c,v
retrieving revision 1.31
diff -u -r1.31 thread-db.c
--- thread-db.c 8 May 2003 22:33:14 -0000 1.31
+++ thread-db.c 3 Jun 2003 20:00:37 -0000
@@ -1011,6 +1011,18 @@
proc_handle.pid = 0;
target_beneath->to_mourn_inferior ();
+
+ /* Detach thread_db target ops if not dealing with a statically
+ linked threaded program. This allows a corefile to be debugged
+ after finishing debugging of a threaded program. At present,
+ debugging a statically-linked threaded program is broken, but
+ the check is added below in the event that it is fixed in the
+ future. */
+ if (!keep_thread_db)
+ {
+ unpush_target (&thread_db_ops);
+ using_thread_db = 0;
+ }
}
static int
prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-06-03 20:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-01-27 23:05 J. Johnston
2003-02-01 13:22 ` Mark Kettenis
2003-02-01 17:00 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-02-03 22:58 ` J. Johnston
2003-02-03 23:39 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-02-18 17:31 ` J. Johnston
2003-06-02 19:22 ` Michael Snyder
2003-06-03 20:03 ` J. Johnston [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3EDCFEF8.30703@redhat.com \
--to=jjohnstn@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=msnyder@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox