Re: Linux threads support

[Christopher Blizzard <blizzard at redhat dot com>]

Kevin Buettner wrote:

> On Aug 27,  5:35pm, Mark Kettenis wrote:
> 
> > Anyway, I'm now at a point where I think it functions better than the
> > current threads support, and I really need to get it more widely
> > tested.  I see two possibilities:
> > 
> > 1. Post a patch and hope that people take the trouble of applying it.
> > 
> > 2. Put the new code directly in the CVS (possible in a seperate
> >    branch).
> > 
> > I think option 1 is doomed to fail.  For option 2 I'd like some
> > opinions (especially from the maintainers of the various Linux ports):
> 
> I agree with you regarding option 1.  For option 2, I think you should
> just check in your changes on the trunk.  It's scary, but I don't
> think it'll get tested otherwise.
> 
> > * Should the stuff be checked in on a seperate branch?
> 
> As noted above, I don't think a separate branch would be advisable. 
> In fact, I think it's be more likely that people would test your
> changes if you posted a patch than if you created a branch with your
> changes.
> 
> > * How important is support for older Linux systems (pre-libthread_db,
> >   i.e. pre glibc-2.1.3) give the fact that GDB has never had any
> >   satisfactory threads support for these systems, and older versions
> >   of the LinuxThreads library contain many critical bugs?
> 
> I don't see any need to offer thread support for older Linux systems. 
> gdb should still be able to debug non-threaded programs on these
> systems though.

I'm not an expert on gdb but I can say from experience is that if you 
don't check it in where people have to fall all over themselves to not 
use it, it won't get tested.

( Of course, in this case, I would probably test it anyway considering 
my history of thread problems with gdb. )

--Chris

-- 
------------
Christopher Blizzard
http://people.redhat.com/blizzard/
Plan to be spontaneous tomorrow.
------------