From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-return-33199-listarch-gdb=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 20183 invoked by alias); 23 Oct 2008 17:14:08 -0000
Received: (qmail 20171 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Oct 2008 17:14:07 -0000
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from el-out-1112.google.com (HELO el-out-1112.google.com) (209.85.162.179)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:13:15 +0000
Received: by el-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id o28so172634ele.3         for <gdb@sourceware.org>; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:13:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.90.119.20 with SMTP id r20mr843737agc.5.1224781991915;         Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:13:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.90.89.3 with HTTP; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:13:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4ced24c0810231013l5957537dr1272d782bb4e391b@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:14:00 -0000
From: "Lukasz Lempart" <llempart@gmail.com>
To: gdb@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: gdb and cloned process
In-Reply-To: <20081023030548.GA21266@caradoc.them.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <4ced24c0810221709u17575bf3s73994724c456e956@mail.gmail.com> 	 <20081023030548.GA21266@caradoc.them.org>
Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2008-10/txt/msg00110.txt.bz2

On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 8:05 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 05:09:32PM -0700, Lukasz Lempart wrote:
>> How does gdb (through libthread_db) figure out what threads belong to a process?
>
> The thread library maintains an internal list of threads.  If you've
> cloned the process, without telling the C library about that, you're
> going to end up with the same list of threads; so the behavior you
> describe is not surprising.
>
Is there a way to do this? I can't seem to find anything in
libthread_db that would allow me to do this. Furthermore, the two
processes share their entire address space, so any change made to the
internal list of threads for one process would have impact on the
other one.