From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11464 invoked by alias); 3 Mar 2008 20:09:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 11451 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Mar 2008 20:09:39 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:09:20 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78A9498119; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 20:09:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C6869802C; Mon, 3 Mar 2008 20:09:18 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JWGyL-0005D7-JB; Mon, 03 Mar 2008 15:09:17 -0500 Date: Mon, 03 Mar 2008 20:09:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Snyder Cc: Martin Fouts , gdb@sourceware.org, Mike Chen Subject: Re: Why does gdb use its own thread ids internally rather than the tid from the underlying thread implementation? Message-ID: <20080303200917.GD19677@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , Martin Fouts , gdb@sourceware.org, Mike Chen References: <1204574228.19253.570.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1204574228.19253.570.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-03/txt/msg00029.txt.bz2 On Mon, Mar 03, 2008 at 11:57:08AM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote: > On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 10:38 -0800, Martin Fouts wrote: > > Hi, > > > > We're trying to optimize the NetBSD 4.0 implementation of pthreads, > > which has an M:N thread implementation, and are having some trouble > > getting gdb to work because the underlying thread id for a thread can > > change in an M:N implementation. Hopefully, Mark Kettenis will have some advice on this. The threading code is platform-specific, and I'm not familiar with any of the BSD ports. > > Or suggestions about how to accommodate M:N without zombie queues? > > Have you looked at the linux and solaris implementations? > They both have M:N thread models. Not any more. Linux support for M:N was removed, since it did not work and there were no viable M:N implementations to test with. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery