From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22729 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2008 23:06:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 22711 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Dec 2008 23:06:26 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.45.13) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 23:05:51 +0000 Received: from zps37.corp.google.com (zps37.corp.google.com [172.25.146.37]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id mBCN5nON008209 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:05:49 -0800 Received: from mu-out-0910.google.com (muei10.prod.google.com [10.102.160.10]) by zps37.corp.google.com with ESMTP id mBCN5la3008644 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:05:48 -0800 Received: by mu-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id i10so1221157mue.7 for ; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:05:47 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.103.214.8 with SMTP id r8mr2063597muq.92.1229123140403; Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:05:40 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <49065BBD.3050800@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> Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2008 23:06:00 -0000 Message-ID: <8ac60eac0812121505m5c6396fbpad0a2aa0b259ffa9@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: "Cannot find new threads" on Fedora 9, but not on CentOS 5 (?) From: Paul Pluzhnikov To: Tom Tromey Cc: ajloft@umich.edu, gdb@sourceware.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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/msg00045.txt.bz2 On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 2:49 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: > Tom> I will ask about it and get back to you. > > My summary of the discussion is that someone will have to dig into the > problem in depth. My understanding is that Ulrich does not like that > patch. Looking some more, I actually got confused :( Here is the patch which is "obviously correct" (and I think largely non-controversial): https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=123756 It is attached to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=179072#c1 > But, neither of us knows enough about this part of gdb to say > what it may be doing wrong. -- Paul Pluzhnikov