[rfa] Include the LWP in thread-db's PTIDs

Daniel Jacobowitz drow@false.org
Wed Dec 8 16:14:00 GMT 2004

On Thu, Dec 02, 2004 at 01:15:59PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 05:36:30PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> >
> >>At one time, I believe that thread-db.c was planned to support the full
> >>range of features supported by the libthread_db interface, presumably as
> >>defined by Sun's implementation.  That never panned out, and while non-1:1
> >>support did work at one point, I don't think it has in a long while.  If 
> >>it
> >>was wanted, I wouldn't re-implement it the same way.  So this patch begins
> >>the process of removing unneeded generality from thread-db.  In 
> >>particular,
> >>while thread-db will still compute the TID, the mapping of threads to LWPs
> >>will be considered fixed.
> >>
> >>My goal is to have a GNU/Linux target vector, whose entry points call into
> >>thread-db when necessary, instead of having a thread-db wrapper around all
> >>the GNU/Linux methods.  One of the things this will fix is the need for 
> >>two
> >>separate versions of the GNU/Linux native wait() code - we will always use
> >>the multi-threaded-aware version.  Another thing it will fix is a bug in 
> >>the
> >>fork-following code which tries to find the LWP from a thread ID.
> >>
> >>This patch tested on i686-pc-linux-gnu using NPTL; no regressions. OK?
> >
> >
> >Here's the patch, updated to apply to linux-thread-db.c instead.  Still
> >no regressions; Mark indicated that the 1:1 assumption seemed reasonable
> >once the file was marked as Linux-specific.
> >
> >Michael, OK to commit?
> Hey, sorry for losing this thread.  Yes, this is OK to commit.

Thanks!  Checked in.

Daniel Jacobowitz

More information about the Gdb-patches mailing list