wrong assumptions about pthread_t being numeric
Mark Kettenis
mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl
Sat Oct 1 09:00:00 GMT 2011
> From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
> Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2011 02:59:59 +0100
>
> > there
> > should be at least a explicit function/macro which takes a thread_t and
> > converts it to long, since it is assumed in a couple of spots that it is
> > of this type.
> > that is exactly what my patch does.
> >
> > and as you wished, it fixes the current issue with minimal effort.
>
> The patch has a number of problems (no biggie, just the usual for
> someone not used to GNU code). I'll take a look if I still failed
> to convince you to change musl instead.
No, I think you shouldn't. This whole madness with a zillion Linux
libc's has to stop. We can't add support for each and every one of
them. I think we should take the position that if people want thread
support for their non-standard libc's in GDB they should provide a
libthread_db.so that is ABI compatible with the one provided by glibc.
Since pthread_t is part of that ABI, that means pthread_t has to be
"unsigned long int".
More information about the Gdb-patches
mailing list