From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18808 invoked by alias); 9 Nov 2009 19:10:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 18800 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Nov 2009 19:10:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com) (65.115.85.69) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:10:13 +0000 Received: from mailhost4.vmware.com (mailhost4.vmware.com [10.16.67.124]) by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EA8D3305A; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:10:11 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.20.94.141] (msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com [10.20.94.141]) by mailhost4.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13FC9C9A1D; Mon, 9 Nov 2009 11:10:11 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4AF868CC.9040008@vmware.com> Date: Mon, 09 Nov 2009 19:10:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20090624) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Gutson , Michael Snyder , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [PATCH] gcore registers storing fix References: <4AF4A505.4010600@codesourcery.com> <4AF72404.1070808@vmware.com> <4AF82E4E.8000500@codesourcery.com> <20091109153110.GA12924@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20091109153110.GA12924@caradoc.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-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-11/txt/msg00160.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Mon, Nov 09, 2009 at 11:59:26AM -0300, Daniel Gutson wrote: >>> 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. >> What would you suggest? I could bound the check to the current frame. > > How about we check that at least one thread is in "thread2"? That's > where gcore was used to create the core file. Except, there's already > a test for that in the file. So maybe we do not need a new test. > I'm guessing that what you want to test is the non-event thread, ie. the one that is suspended while the other one hits the breakpoint?