This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

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


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.




Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]