From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3294 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2004 14:28:57 -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 3282 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2004 14:28:55 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 3 Mar 2004 14:28:55 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.30 #1 (Debian)) id 1AyXMY-0003KW-Hq; Wed, 03 Mar 2004 09:28:42 -0500 Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 14:28:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: George Anzinger , cagney@gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Making "info thread" sane Message-ID: <20040303142842.GA12777@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Eli Zaretskii , George Anzinger , cagney@gnu.org, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <403FEA02.6040506@mvista.com> <200403011454.35346.amitkale@emsyssoft.com> <4044FEDE.5000105@mvista.com> <20040302214535.GA24405@nevyn.them.org> <40450749.7020304@mvista.com> <20040302221718.GA26931@nevyn.them.org> <404515AA.8040709@mvista.com> <404517E8.1020708@gnu.org> <4045236B.3060104@mvista.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2004-03/txt/msg00023.txt.bz2 On Wed, Mar 03, 2004 at 08:01:58AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2004 16:14:35 -0800 > > From: George Anzinger > > > > Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > Um, can you explain the problem? > > > > The problem is that, for most threaded apps and for the kernel which treats each > > task as a thread, the "info thread" command gives a list of threads all stopped > > in the context switch code. What is desired is to do one or more "up" commands > > and report info on this location. > > Can you explain why GDB should know about this? The user could > always "up" manually or via the GDB's scripting language, right? > > As I see it, the situation is analogous to when you, e.g., attach GDB > to a running process, and the backtrace shows that it is stuck in > some uninteresting system call. The very next thing to do is either > "up" or step the program until it winds up in some application code > that _is_ interesting. We don't request GDB to show the application > code automagically, do we? The interesting thing about George's situation is that there's a lot of threads (basically, all but one of them) that we know in advance will be stuck in context switching code. One of the nice things about info threads is that it shows you the current frame for all your threads; but in this case, that's not really very interesting information. If we could find out where those threads were _before_ they switched out, now, that would make for an interesting overview. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer