This is the mail archive of the gdb@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: A target has-a 1:N threads?


Hello,

At present GDB maintains a thread-db that contains all the "threads" known to GDB. The list is cross-target. That is, it can include both LWPs from the lower "process layer" and "threads" from the higher "thread layer".

I think the currently implicit target <-> thread relationship should be made more explicit:

- thread_info should point back at it's target
- a target should let you iterate over its "threads"

This, I belive, will help clean-up the current tid:pid dance. A thread would always know its target and hence thread operations would always be applied at the correct level.


Make that 0:N threads. I forgot the targets that don't have threads.

It's really, really not my day.


The "0" is for the case where nothing has executed. For instance, a not yet running executable (Kevin's e-mail under another related thread^D^D^D^Dtopic raised it). Once the executable has executed, there's at least one "thread".

Andrew



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