From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5855 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2004 01:21:59 -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 5825 invoked from network); 30 Jan 2004 01:21:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 30 Jan 2004 01:21:58 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1AmNM2-0007ie-LP for ; Thu, 29 Jan 2004 20:21:54 -0500 Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 01:21:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: qL and qf remote packets [Re: [Kgdb-bugreport] Re: [discuss] kgdb-x86_64-1.6 for kernel 2.4.23] Message-ID: <20040130012153.GA24158@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <200312261743.38980.amitkale@emsyssoft.com> <200312300937.48484.amitkale@emsyssoft.com> <20031230041859.GA29114@nevyn.them.org> <200312301811.29927.amitkale@emsyssoft.com> <20031230152803.GB13258@nevyn.them.org> <3FF322B6.30603@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FF322B6.30603@gnu.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-01/txt/msg00338.txt.bz2 On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 02:25:42PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 06:11:29PM +0530, Amit S. Kale wrote: > > > >>While q[s/f] packet itself doesn't have pid wrap-around problem, I can't > >>figure out what will happen to gdb's database of threads in following > >>scenario. > >> > >>1. GDB adds a thread with id 1500 to thread database. > >>2. It finds that the thread has died later. > >>3. Does it delete the thread from its database? > >>4. It again finds a thread with id 1500 becase of wrapping around of pid. > >>If it has completely forgotten about previous thread in its dabase, there > >>shouldn't be any problem. > > > > > >Indeed, there won't be any problem. I believe that even if thread 1500 > >exists, and then dies and restarts between breakpoints, GDB still won't > >get confused. > > The user might (eventually). They aren't going to be notified of thread > create/delete events. Also, it could leave around per-thread > breakpoings no longer applicable to that thread. > > However, until someone manages to present this as a real problem ... I suggested a protocol for describing the create/delete events, but it was dropped because it was "too asynchronous" IIRC? Certainly with kgdb stopping the system to report thread create/delete events isn't acceptable, so I don't know quite what to do about that. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer