This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [RFA] Don't use thread_db on corefiles
- From: Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>
- To: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sources dot redhat dot com
- Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2002 17:23:35 -0800
- Subject: Re: [RFA] Don't use thread_db on corefiles
- Organization: Red Hat, Inc.
- References: <20011213114847.A17989@nevyn.them.org> <3C35002F.D93E8D94@redhat.com> <20020104132606.D29086@nevyn.them.org>
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 05:06:55PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote:
> > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > >
> > > This patch fixes a really frustrating internal error when you open the
> > > coredump of a multithreaded application. Depending on your kernel, either
> > > the core has threads (corefile.c supports this just fine) or it doesn't.
> > > Neither way will opening libthread_db work right.
> > >
> > > This patch isn't quite complete, because strange things happen when you
> > > connect to a remote target too. But fixing that requires a little more
> > > fiddling.
> > >
> > > Is this OK?
> > Daniel, sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this.
> > Now that I've had a chance to think about it, I agree that
> > this is the right thing to do. Only I'd like to make it
> > a separate "if" and just goto quit -- since it is not
> > related to the "if" that's in there now. Is that OK
> > with you?
> > If you want you can just check in your patch as is,
> > and I'll make mine as a separate change.
> Well, I'mn not sure this is right. It's a reasonable thing to attach
> to a program, debug it live, then attach to a core of the same
> program... at that point we need to go through the unpush_target steps
> in just the same way as if the objfile was discarded, right?
Hmmmm... I don't quite understand why, but your version does seem
to work better. Let's use it for now. Check it in?