From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H . J . Lu" To: Eric Paire Cc: Mark Kettenis , GDB Subject: Re: Is the current gdb 5.1 broken for Linuxthreads? Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:05:00 -0000 Message-id: <20010919090519.B30455@lucon.org> References: <200109191438.f8JEcoR29295@mailhost.ri.silicomp.fr> X-SW-Source: 2001-09/msg00163.html On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 04:38:51PM +0200, Eric Paire wrote: > > BTW, debugging threaded apps under Linux will always be somewhat > > fragile as long as there isn't a sane kernel threads interface to the > > kernel. There should be an interface to stop all threads in a > > synchronous way. Unfortunately, I have no hope that such an interface > > will be added to the kernel. > > > I don't agree with you: There are at least 2 bugs in the current Linux > kernel which makes you think that the support is fragile: > 1) SIGSTOP management is not-POSIX conformant > 2) reparenting of debugged processes is buggy > Could you please provide testcases for them? Even better, do you have kernel patches? > > > > BTW, people may be very disappointed at the current Linuxthreads > > > support in gdb 5.1. > > > > If they are they should help improving it. Several people have > > reported problems. Most of these I have been unable to reproduce. > > Hardly anyone even bothers to answer me if I ask for a small > > self-contained testcase for the problem. > > I provided one small self-contained testcase to show 3 problems: 1. Attach none-first thread doesn't work on dynamic binaries. 2. Attach none-first thread doesn't work on static binaries. 3. Attach first thread doesn't work on static binaries. Can anyone duplicate them? H.J.