From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H . J . Lu" To: Mark Kettenis Cc: GDB Subject: Re: RFC: Fix gdb 5.1 for Linuxthreads Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 08:58:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010919085854.A30455@lucon.org> References: <20010917124710.A21992@lucon.org> <20010917161350.A25349@lucon.org> <20010917191357.A28300@lucon.org> <20010918135555.A12648@lucon.org> <20010918152200.A14153@lucon.org> X-SW-Source: 2001-09/msg00162.html On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 04:04:47PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote: > "H . J . Lu" writes: > > > This patch seems to work for me. Any comments? It also fixes debugging > > the statically linked linuxthreads binaries. > > What's the rationale behind this patch. Even though it might seem to > fix your problems, it looks wrong to me. It seems to add "robustness" > in the wrong places, such that other assumptions that I made in the > lin-lwp.c module might be violated. Certainly the outcome of > is_cloned() won't be correct in some cases. This patch tries to show the problem which is calling wait () on cloned processes. I will buy it is wrong. Can you provide a testcase to show it like what I did? > > The problem with attaching should be solved in a different way. And That is why it is RFC. > what's wrong with debugging statically linked LinuxThreads binaries? Just compile my testcase statically and attach it. You can see it yourself. H.J.