From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27884 invoked by alias); 25 Jan 2007 19:54:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 27873 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jan 2007 19:54:23 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from cse-mail.unl.edu (HELO cse-mail.unl.edu) (129.93.165.11) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Jan 2007 19:54:17 +0000 Received: from [129.93.164.247] (cse-witty-01.unl.edu [129.93.164.247]) (authenticated bits=0) by cse-mail.unl.edu (8.13.6/8.13.5) with ESMTP id l0PJsAls012901 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:54:15 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <45B90ADD.1070802@cse.unl.edu> Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 19:54:00 -0000 From: Neo User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0a1 (X11/20060724) MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: David Carlton , gdb Subject: Re: multithreaded core files References: <20070125194840.GA20591@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20070125194840.GA20591@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH authentication, not delayed by milter-greylist-2.0.2 (cse-mail.unl.edu [129.93.165.11]); Thu, 25 Jan 2007 13:54:16 -0600 (CST) X-Virus-Status: Clean 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: 2007-01/txt/msg00323.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Thu, Jan 25, 2007 at 11:40:42AM -0800, David Carlton wrote: > >> One of my coworkers is looking at a core file from a multithreaded >> program. (x86 Linux.) In this situation, GDB only prints a backtrace >> from the thread that actually seg faulted; he'd like to see what other >> threads were doing at the time. >> > > It should already print all the backtraces. Daniel, Could you point me to the code that does this job inside GDB? Thanks, Neo > If it doesn't, the usual > explanation is that you are using a broken kernel version which does > not save registers for every thread. Many 2.4 kernels fit that > description. > > -- I would remember that if researchers were not ambitious probably today we haven't the technology we are using!