Re: [PATCH] gcore registers storing fix

[Michael Snyder <msnyder@vmware.com>]

Daniel Gutson wrote:
> The attached patch attempts to solve a bug that caused the gcore command 
> to produce core files containing incorrect registers information. The 
> problem caused incomplete backtraces when the files were read back into GDB.
> 
> I tested this patch with the gdb testsuite, and my addition to the 
> gcore-thread.exp test case.
> 
> If OK, please commit it for me since I don't have write access.

What host configuration is this for?

At first glance, the procfs change looks ok (but I'm no longer
up to date on procfs).  I have some doubt about the test change.

You say in your comment, "The threads should be standing at a
known function, rather than ??".  I'm not sure how we can know
that.  The threads may have been stopped anywhere, and it's
always possible to find a library with no symbols.


> 2009-11-06  Daniel Gutson <dgutson@codesourcery.com>
> 
> 	gdb/
> 	* procfs.c (procfs_do_thread_registers): Added a call to fetch
> 	register values before saving them in the core file
> 	through the gcore command.
> 	(procfs_corefile_thread_callback): removed the backup of
> 	inferior_ptid before calling procfs_do_thread_registers since
> 	the function already saves and restores it before returning.
> 
> 	gdb/testsuite/gdb.threads/
> 	* gcore-thread.exp: Added a test case in order to check
> 	if the core dump contains the registers values, and symbol
> 	lookup is working properly.
>