From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1956 invoked by alias); 10 Mar 2006 19:09:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 1947 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Mar 2006 19:09:53 -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; Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:09:51 +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 k2AJ9m4Q028340; Fri, 10 Mar 2006 14:09:48 -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 k2AJ9l114454; Fri, 10 Mar 2006 14:09:47 -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 k2AJ9hmG017504; Fri, 10 Mar 2006 14:09:46 -0500 Message-ID: <4411CEF7.5040601@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2006 19:50:00 -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> <20060224230957.GA7834@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20060224230957.GA7834@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/msg00161.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 05:41:15PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > >>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. > > > FYI, I've got that more or less working now (as well as it was > previously). I'll post it in a bit. > Hey Daniel, what's the status on this?