From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14388 invoked by alias); 1 Mar 2006 22:15:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 14380 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Mar 2006 22:15:10 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 01 Mar 2006 22:15:08 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k21MF2bq004894; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 17:15:02 -0500 Received: from potter.sfbay.redhat.com (potter.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.27.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id k21MEv123209; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 17:14:57 -0500 Received: from [172.16.24.50] (bluegiant.sfbay.redhat.com [172.16.24.50]) by potter.sfbay.redhat.com (8.12.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id k21MEtKt023524; Wed, 1 Mar 2006 17:14:55 -0500 Message-ID: <44061CDF.10708@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 22:15:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.4.1 (X11/20050929) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Some more multi-fork fixes References: <20060115190757.GA10454@nevyn.them.org> <43DA7BFE.2070100@redhat.com> <20060224224115.GA6792@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20060224224115.GA6792@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-03/txt/msg00024.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 12:01:02PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote: > >>>Some other problems I noticed, but did not fix: >>> >>>The "follow child, print pids" test is victim of a race condition; >>>sometimes >>>the "$pid done" printout from the inferior will be interleaved with the GDB >>>output, causing expect to mark the test as a failure. >>> >>>delete-fork really ought to call waitpid after deleting the fork; otherwise >>>the process lives on as a zombie. >> >>That's fine with me too. > > > Well, I'd been sort of hoping that you (as the developer who > contributed this huge pile of new code) would take care of its > reported bugs. Sorry about that -- I should be able to give it more time and attention now. Just trying to catch up... > > I'm up against a bit of a brick wall at the moment. I've got > patches in my source tree to unify the single-threaded and > multi-threaded code in the Linux native layer into a single > combined target. But since this is an inherently single-threaded > operation the multi-threaded code totally falls down - switching > forks doesn't preserve things like the LWP list, leading to > messy timeouts. I'm going to find some minimally painful > way to make the two of them talk to each other. >