This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFC][PATCH] Allow JIT unwinder provide symbol information
- From: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- To: Alexander Smundak <asmundak at google dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>, Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2014 23:50:24 -0800
- Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Allow JIT unwinder provide symbol information
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20131226183618 dot D264CA18A0 at sasha2 dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <21204 dot 13416 dot 607204 dot 485255 at ruffy dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <CAHQ51u6Hd3+B78RUK5rTh49nqvFgt_o1x6f=sePPZVDEo1ueTA at mail dot gmail dot com> <CADPb22Qithfi41fs1Ax5tz_g-zf8pzPRWKbnBrJZCiSqrO=KuA at mail dot gmail dot com>
On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Doug Evans <dje@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Alexander Smundak <asmundak@google.com> wrote:
>> I fixed the patch based on your comments, except for the one
>> about using LWP for thread identification.
>> Waiting for the opinions about the approach used in this RFC patch.
>>
>>> > +/* Returns LWP ID of the current thread or 0. */
>>> > +
>>> > +typedef long (gdb_get_lwp) (void);
Another issue that occurs to me is what if the loaded jit shared
library on some platform (not necessarily linux) wants to use
ptid.tid, even if both ptid.lwp and ptid.tid are available?
Does it make sense to provide routines that access each?
Pedro, the issue is what handle on a thread to export to the
jit-reader-load shared library.
Java for linux wants the lwp, and currently the patch will return
ptid.tid instead of ptid.lwp if lwp == 0 to shield the shared lib
from gdb vs gdbserver thread ptid usage differences, on the assumption
that if lwp == 0 then tid is actually lwp.
On a separate note,
IIRC we still have to decide how to handle version 1 jit-reader-load
shared libs.