This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: wrong assumptions about pthread_t being numeric


> From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 02:59:59 +0100
> 
> > there 
> > should be at least a explicit function/macro which takes a thread_t and 
> > converts it to long, since it is assumed in a couple of spots that it is 
> > of this type.
> > that is exactly what my patch does.
> > 
> > and as you wished, it fixes the current issue with minimal effort.
> 
> The patch has a number of problems (no biggie, just the usual for
> someone not used to GNU code).  I'll take a look if I still failed
> to convince you to change musl instead.

No, I think you shouldn't.  This whole madness with a zillion Linux
libc's has to stop.  We can't add support for each and every one of
them.  I think we should take the position that if people want thread
support for their non-standard libc's in GDB they should provide a
libthread_db.so that is ABI compatible with the one provided by glibc.
Since pthread_t is part of that ABI, that means pthread_t has to be
"unsigned long int".


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]