Re: gdb and dlopen

H . J . Lu
2001-10-17T08:29:00Z

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.