From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3254 invoked by alias); 6 Oct 2009 00:46:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 3246 invoked by uid 22791); 6 Oct 2009 00:46:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 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; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:46:03 +0000 Received: from mailhost2.vmware.com (mailhost2.vmware.com [10.16.67.167]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4D02F2B014 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2009 17:46:00 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.94.141] (msnyder-server.eng.vmware.com [10.20.94.141]) by mailhost2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2EBED8E582 for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2009 17:46:00 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4ACA9270.3020205@vmware.com> Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:46:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Potential problem between non-stop and linux-thread-db Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; 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: 2009-10/txt/msg00087.txt.bz2 Just something I noticed just now... linux-thread-db depends on callback functions provided by gdb_proc_service.c. Some of those callbacks are for instance /* Stop the lightweight process LWPID within the target process PH. */ ps_err_e ps_lstop (gdb_ps_prochandle_t ph, lwpid_t lwpid) { /* All lightweight processes are stopped when under control of GDB. */ return PS_OK; } /* Resume the lightweight process (LWP) LWPID within the target process PH. */ ps_err_e ps_lcontinue (gdb_ps_prochandle_t ph, lwpid_t lwpid) { /* Pretend we did successfully continue LWPID. GDB will take care of it later on. */ return PS_OK; } These were written under the "all-stop" convention, but the comments are no longer true, is it not so? So, async/nonstop guys -- do we need to do anything about this? Michael