From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 94858 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 2016 13:09:16 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 94849 invoked by uid 89); 1 Sep 2016 13:09:16 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Sep 2016 13:09:15 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D314B3F755; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 13:09:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u81D9Cbu026292; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 09:09:13 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Fix lwp_suspend/unsuspend imbalance in linux_wait_1 To: Antoine Tremblay References: <20160831171406.24057-1-antoine.tremblay@ericsson.com> <367f43f2-aacf-672f-5a1f-2d7b16381e85@redhat.com> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org From: Pedro Alves Message-ID: <8a5b9633-43bc-6032-efad-dd64fc19bdd7@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 13:09:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-09/txt/msg00014.txt.bz2 On 08/31/2016 08:16 PM, Antoine Tremblay wrote: > BTW I always wanted to do this but never get to it, but it seems to me > that it would be nice to have a --fatal-asserts flags in GDB that would > create a core on assert. > > That way we could get a backtrace of the assert and know if we fixed a > particular issue like this case. I agree. Calling exit() as done today is fatal too, so that's a bit ambiguous. Maybe follow along gdb's "maintenance set internal-error {corefile,quit}", and call it "--internal-error={corefile,quit}". Thanks, Pedro Alves