[RFA] Inform about new thread in a single place.
Fri Dec 14 19:42:00 GMT 2007
> From: Vladimir Prus <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 22:07:19 +0300
> On Friday 14 December 2007 21:47:45 Mark Kettenis wrote:
> > > From: Vladimir Prus <email@example.com>
> > > Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2007 20:09:08 +0300
> > >
> > > We have lots of place where "[New thread XXX]" is printed.
> > > This patch makes add_thread responsible for that. OK?
> > No, there are places in the code where add_thread() is called where we
> > should not print the "[New thread xxx]" message. For example in
> > bsd-uthread.c, where the main thread is added to the list of threads
> > to associate process ID and thread ID.
> Do you mean this code:
> /* HACK: Twiddle INFERIOR_PTID such that the initial thread of a
> process isn't recognized as a new thread. */
> if (ptid_get_tid (ptid) != 0 && !in_thread_list (ptid)
> && ptid_get_tid (inferior_ptid) == 0)
> add_thread (ptid);
> inferior_ptid = ptid;
> ? I've just re-checked, and it appears that:
> 1. The modules that called add_thread without printing
> a message about new thread, prior to my patch are:
> - aix-thread.c
> - bsd-uthread.c
> - corelow.c
> - hpux-thread.c
> - nto-procfs.c
> Looking at those, it seems like the place you've pointed
> at is the only one where reporting of new thread is undesirable.
> What about me adding 'add_thread_silent' function that will
> not print any message, and using it in bds-uthread.c?
That'd be acceptable to me. I'm not absolutely true that none of the
modules you mention above don't need this, but we can fix those when
we notice the problem.
More information about the Gdb-patches