RFA: Collect unexplained stopped threads in lin-lwp
Michael Snyder
msnyder@redhat.com
Wed Jun 18 23:27:00 GMT 2003
Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> [Michael, you more or less approved this patch in December, but it's seen a
> few changes - linux_record_stopped_pid isn't a dummy any more.]
>
> This patch just accepts processes we aren't currently debugging which report
> a SIGSTOP, and throws them onto a list. Not very useful by itself, but my
> next patch will both cause this to happen (by enabling fork events) and
> empty the list when it receives fork events. I'm only submitting it
> separately, because it was the last meaningful piece I could break out.
>
> Is this OK?
>
I realize these are not the same as LWPs, but is there any reason
you can't throw them in the existing LWP list, and then pull them
out discriminately? (if that's a word...)
Just a suggestion. If there is a reason, then yes, approved.
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list