From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18112 invoked by alias); 18 May 2009 17:10:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 17801 invoked by uid 22791); 18 May 2009 17:10:17 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.33.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 18 May 2009 17:10:12 +0000 Received: from zps77.corp.google.com (zps77.corp.google.com [172.25.146.77]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n4IHA8nm005873 for ; Mon, 18 May 2009 18:10:08 +0100 Received: from qyk27 (qyk27.prod.google.com [10.241.83.155]) by zps77.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n4IH9miJ002667 for ; Mon, 18 May 2009 10:10:06 -0700 Received: by qyk27 with SMTP id 27so5460902qyk.2 for ; Mon, 18 May 2009 10:10:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.89.146 with SMTP id e18mr2990805qcm.23.1242666606373; Mon, 18 May 2009 10:10:06 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <200905181444.53703.pedro@codesourcery.com> References: <200904072056.04727.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200905180327.00969.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200905181444.53703.pedro@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 17:10:00 -0000 Message-ID: <8ac60eac0905181010t3be634f7tac954fc4ab6486f5@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: Add base linux native multi-process support. From: Paul Pluzhnikov To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Tom Tromey Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-System-Of-Record: true 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: 2009-05/txt/msg00367.txt.bz2 On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 6:44 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > On Monday 18 May 2009 03:27:00, Pedro Alves wrote: >> In a multi-process world, I don't think we can make this conditioning >> on last_loaded be sensible anymore. I agree. I don't really think this conditioning is that great in single-process mode either. I just did it to replicate current behavior. > I think this is the only detail that may > need sorting out, if at all, so I think I'll go ahead with the patch, > and offer myself to fix this bit if needed. =A0If should be easier for > Paul to try it out as well this way (just cvs up!). I just built and tested this with several different libthread_db's. I don't see any problems :-) Thanks, --=20 Paul Pluzhnikov