From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12547 invoked by alias); 18 Dec 2008 19:36:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 12538 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Dec 2008 19:36:04 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com) (65.115.85.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:35:29 +0000 Received: from mailhost5.vmware.com (mailhost5.vmware.com [10.16.68.131]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D90042A009; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:35:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.20.92.151] (promb-2s-dhcp151.eng.vmware.com [10.20.92.151]) by mailhost5.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2CF0DC0F0; Thu, 18 Dec 2008 11:35:27 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <494AA4D1.8080008@vmware.com> Date: Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:36:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "tromey@redhat.com" CC: Paul Pluzhnikov , "ajloft@umich.edu" , "gdb@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: "Cannot find new threads" on Fedora 9, but not on CentOS 5 (?) References: <4907B915.5040101@gmail.com> <8ac60eac0810281920r4bf71400hc8171bdee3c92ca@mail.gmail.com> <490909B3.2080307@gmail.com> <8ac60eac0810291830g46604c3eye8365240c48007d0@mail.gmail.com> <490BBEF4.1040801@gmail.com> <8ac60eac0810312346l638f3011n66d7681444329486@mail.gmail.com> <490C75B4.20001@gmail.com> <8ac60eac0811011440g46fcd9a6uda48e1c3b25eb776@mail.gmail.com> <20081212230346.GA12648@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2008-12/txt/msg00081.txt.bz2 Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > Tom> My summary of the discussion is that someone will have to dig into the > Tom> problem in depth. My understanding is that Ulrich does not like that > Tom> patch. But, neither of us knows enough about this part of gdb to say > Tom> what it may be doing wrong. > > Daniel> I don't suppose you can be any more specific? I agree that the > Daniel> dl-load.c bit is ugly, but at least the other portion seems clearly > Daniel> correct and I don't understand how the fault token shifted back to > Daniel> GDB. > > The above really does convey the gist of our conversation. > > I'm somewhat uncomfortable trying to act as an intermediary in a > discussion where I really know nothing about the problem. I will try > to educate myself a bit so I can come up with good followup questions. Tom, I do appreciate your position... Could you possibly summarize the problem and the proposed patch?