From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8093 invoked by alias); 14 Jan 2003 22:21:27 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 8085 invoked from network); 14 Jan 2003 22:21:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 209.249.29.67 with SMTP; 14 Jan 2003 22:21:27 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18YbJd-00018q-00; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:21:57 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18YZRP-0002Ls-00; Tue, 14 Jan 2003 17:21:51 -0500 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:21:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Cc: Roland McGrath Subject: Thread handles Message-ID: <20030114222151.GA8975@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com, Roland McGrath Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-01/txt/msg00238.txt.bz2 Roland, My question is about the precise lifetime of a td_thrhandle_t, in both LinuxThreads' and NPTL's thread_db implementations. Right now, GDB re-queries for the thread handles every time the target stops. This hurts a lot... from the implementation, I believe they'll remain valid over time, until the thread exits. Is this right/reasonable? I'm not worried if one thread handle could be eventually re-used for another thread after the first exits; we'll notice the thread exit, discard the thread handle, and go on with our lives. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer