From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23227 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2008 20:20:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 23218 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Apr 2008 20:20:55 -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; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:20:33 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AB8E98278; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:20:31 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0E3B98149; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 20:20:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Jlrdm-0003Gp-Ft; Tue, 15 Apr 2008 16:20:30 -0400 Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2008 23:48:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Icarus Sparry Cc: Michael Snyder , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: GDB doesn't display thread_id while debugging a core file Message-ID: <20080415202030.GA12484@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Icarus Sparry , Michael Snyder , gdb@sourceware.org References: <1208282686.3690.14.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: 2008-04/txt/msg00141.txt.bz2 On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 01:16:41PM -0700, Icarus Sparry wrote: > The program I am interested in at the moment only has a single __thread > variable, which is used to index many arrays. I have a number of > choices, ranging from write a function in gdb to get the value of this > particular variable, to fixing gdb so it can get the information > correctly from the core for all thread local variables. The latter is > going to be more work, but makes gdb a better debugger for everyone. We've talked about accessing __thread storage without passing through libthread_db. In my opinion, that is likely to be a better solution. However, it's a bit tricky to figure out the module numbers assigned by the C library in this case... -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery