From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2973 invoked by alias); 15 Jun 2004 18:48:53 -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 2937 invoked from network); 15 Jun 2004 18:48:50 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 15 Jun 2004 18:48:50 -0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i5FImoe1014885 for ; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:48:50 -0400 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5FImnw20066; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 14:48:49 -0400 Received: from redhat.com (dhcp-172-16-25-160.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.25.160]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i5FImhP22994; Tue, 15 Jun 2004 11:48:43 -0700 Message-ID: <40CF448B.4050507@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2004 18:48:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Organization: Red Hat, Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; es-ES; rv:1.4.2) Gecko/20040301 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: Paul Gilliam , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Did the fix for recycled thread ids uncover another bug? References: <20040614231243.GA31016@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20040614231243.GA31016@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-06/txt/msg00354.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 03:57:57PM -0700, Paul Gilliam wrote: > >>Forgive me if this is not the place to post this. It's kind of a >>follow-up to >>a thread that was here a few months ago. >> >>If I set a breakpoint in a thread function, then when that breakpoint is >>hit, >>things go bad. If instead of a breakpoint, I hit cntl-c while the thread >>function is active, things work right. >> >>I have seen this on Intel and ppc. (The Intel was recent, but not >>current. >>The ppc was current). >> >>The strange thing is that the bug shows up on 32-bit ppc, but not 64-bit >>ppc. >> >>I will post a follow-up with the details if someone tells me this is the >>right >>mail-list. > > > You should probably use gdb@ instead. > If you do, would you please include me in the Cc: list? I'm sort of a semi-active threads maintainer. I'm curious about the details of how "things go bad". Michael