From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21048 invoked by alias); 2 Mar 2003 18:29:05 -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 21041 invoked from network); 2 Mar 2003 18:29:05 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (24.157.209.173) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 2 Mar 2003 18:29:05 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE94A2A9C; Sun, 2 Mar 2003 13:31:08 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E624DEC.7040108@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2003 18:29:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: expected behavior of GNU/Linux gcore and corefiles References: <3E617797.5000704@redhat.com> <20030302033900.GA14335@nevyn.them.org> <20030302034653.GA14491@nevyn.them.org> <3E622998.5020104@redhat.com> <20030302170911.GA20234@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00030.txt.bz2 > On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 10:56:08AM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >> >On Sat, Mar 01, 2003 at 10:39:00PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: >> > > >> >>> My instincts tell me that, to completly implement the above >> >>> functionality, GDB is always going to need libthread-db. If GDB could >> >>> implement the above on a core file without using libthread-db, then GDB >> >>> could also implement the above on a live target also without using >> >>> libthread-db. This is because a core file is always going to contain a >> >>> subset of the information made available via ptrace et.al. > >> > >> > >> >Oh, and one other thing that I like to mention when this comes up. My >> >previous message was the implementation issues involved; this one's the >> >motivational issue. Thread_db is not, and can't/shouldn't be, >> >available in a cross environment. We have done a lot of work to make >> >GDB read corefiles in a cross environment; and at MontaVista we've seen >> >a large demand for this functionality from our customers. So using >> >thread_db with corefiles doesn't meet our (GDB developers') goals, I >> >think. > >> >> Sorry, on this point, I'm lost. What are you suggesting here? > > > My point is just that it's important for GDB to not require thread_db > when dealing with core files. A lot of people seem to use e.g. Solaris > to debug core files and expect everything they would get from using GDB > natively; that's their expectation and so far we've been able to stay > pretty much there. If that position means precluding certain native-only functionality? Andrew