From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27225 invoked by alias); 5 Jun 2009 19:03:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 26791 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Jun 2009 19:03:50 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:03:43 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2561B10F69; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 19:03:41 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4C9510E5D; Fri, 5 Jun 2009 19:03:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MCehX-0008Sp-D5; Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:03:39 -0400 Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:03:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Aleksandar Ristovski Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: corelow and threads question Message-ID: <20090605190339.GA32500@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Aleksandar Ristovski , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2009-06/txt/msg00052.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 02:54:54PM -0400, Aleksandar Ristovski wrote: > Hello, > > Since: http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2009-06/msg00101.html > diverged from original intention, I would like to ask a question regarding > core_ops and possible solution to my problem. > > Right now, we are treating core_ops somewhat specially since we add > threads before calling target_find_new_threads in core_open; but why don't > we let target_find_new_threads add the threads instead of adding them in > core_open? > > Wouldn't that actually be the right solution? I think the version you have now will cause "info threads" to duplicate threads every time you type it. The current version reflects that threads are only added when the target is opened. That said, I think either way is fine - but you'll have to detect already-added threads. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery