From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 106592 invoked by alias); 1 Sep 2016 15:12:35 -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 106578 invoked by uid 89); 1 Sep 2016 15:12:35 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY autolearn=no version=3.3.2 spammy= X-HELO: usplmg20.ericsson.net Received: from usplmg20.ericsson.net (HELO usplmg20.ericsson.net) (198.24.6.45) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 01 Sep 2016 15:12:33 +0000 Received: from EUSAAHC003.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.81]) by (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id D7.A8.02488.6D648C75; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 17:18:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from elxa4wqvvz1 (147.117.188.8) by smtps-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.188.81) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.301.0; Thu, 1 Sep 2016 11:12:29 -0400 References: <20160831171406.24057-1-antoine.tremblay@ericsson.com> <367f43f2-aacf-672f-5a1f-2d7b16381e85@redhat.com> <8a5b9633-43bc-6032-efad-dd64fc19bdd7@redhat.com> User-agent: mu4e 0.9.17; emacs 24.5.50.1 From: Antoine Tremblay To: Pedro Alves CC: Antoine Tremblay , Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Fix lwp_suspend/unsuspend imbalance in linux_wait_1 In-Reply-To: <8a5b9633-43bc-6032-efad-dd64fc19bdd7@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 01 Sep 2016 15:12:00 -0000 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2016-09/txt/msg00018.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves writes: > 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}". > Good idea and the same with --internal-warning I'll add it as such to my todo list. Thanks, Antoine