From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "H . J . Lu" <hjl@lucon.org>
To: Mark Kettenis <kettenis@science.uva.nl>
Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>, Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>, Kimball Thurston <kimball@sgrail.com>, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: gdb and dlopen
Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 08:29:00 -0000
Message-id: <20011017082901.D10021@lucon.org>
References: <y3radyrjqf8.wl@paladin.sgrail.com> <20011016161525.A1241@nevyn.them.org> <y3r8zebjbz8.wl@paladin.sgrail.com> <20011016213252.A8694@nevyn.them.org> <20011016220353.A9538@nevyn.them.org> <y3r669fj7bd.wl@paladin.sgrail.com> <3BCCF83F.8010401@cygnus.com> <20011017010849.A23345@nevyn.them.org> <20011017011923.A27536@nevyn.them.org> <s3i3d4i1fe3.fsf@soliton.wins.uva.nl>
X-SW-Source: 2001-10/msg00174.html

On Wed, Oct 17, 2001 at 04:59:32PM +0200, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com> writes:
> 
> > > thread_db_thread_alive is EXPENSIVE!  And we do it on every attempt to
> > > read the child's memory, of which we appear to have several hundred in
> > > a call to current_sos ().
> > 
> > (and lwp_from_thread is a little expensive too...)
> > 
> > In the case I'm looking at, where I don't need to mess with either
> > breakpoints or multiple threads (:P), I can safely comment out that
> > whole check.
> 
> The FIXME on the check is a bit vague, and probably so since I didn't
> exactly understand what was going on when I wrote that bit of code.  I
> believe the need for the check arises from the fact that glibc 2.1.3
> is buggy in the sense that TD_DEATH events are unusable.  This means
> that we have no clean way to determine whether a thread exited or
> not.  Therefore we have to check whether it is still alive.
> 
> If we declare glibc 2.1.3 broken, and force people to upgrade to glibc

Why not? We just declare gdb 5.1 only supports thread in glibc 2.2 and
above.


H.J.