From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17629 invoked by alias); 31 Dec 2003 19:25:44 -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 17622 invoked from network); 31 Dec 2003 19:25:44 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (66.30.197.194) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 31 Dec 2003 19:25:44 -0000 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1B532B8F; Wed, 31 Dec 2003 14:25:42 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3FF322B6.30603@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2003 19:25:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030820 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: "Amit S. Kale" , George Anzinger , gdb@sources.redhat.com, kgdb-bugreport@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: qL and qf remote packets [Re: [Kgdb-bugreport] Re: [discuss] kgdb-x86_64-1.6 for kernel 2.4.23] References: <200312261743.38980.amitkale@emsyssoft.com> <200312300937.48484.amitkale@emsyssoft.com> <20031230041859.GA29114@nevyn.them.org> <200312301811.29927.amitkale@emsyssoft.com> <20031230152803.GB13258@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-12/txt/msg00305.txt.bz2 > On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 06:11:29PM +0530, Amit S. Kale wrote: > >> While q[s/f] packet itself doesn't have pid wrap-around problem, I can't >> figure out what will happen to gdb's database of threads in following >> scenario. >> >> 1. GDB adds a thread with id 1500 to thread database. >> 2. It finds that the thread has died later. >> 3. Does it delete the thread from its database? >> 4. It again finds a thread with id 1500 becase of wrapping around of pid. If >> it has completely forgotten about previous thread in its dabase, there >> shouldn't be any problem. > > > Indeed, there won't be any problem. I believe that even if thread 1500 > exists, and then dies and restarts between breakpoints, GDB still won't > get confused. The user might (eventually). They aren't going to be notified of thread create/delete events. Also, it could leave around per-thread breakpoings no longer applicable to that thread. However, until someone manages to present this as a real problem ... Andrew