This is the mail archive of the gdb@sourceware.org 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: linux-thread-db.c not only caller of add_thread, -> gdb segv


On Nov 9, 2007 7:25 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 09, 2007 at 05:26:56PM -0800, Douglas Evans wrote:
> > GDB detects the exec and removes thread_db_ops from the target stack.
> > But (a) it doesn't clear out thread_list and (b) still thinks it has control of
> > the running process.
>
> (b) should be true, no?

I suspect it's a matter of degrees (so to speak) or word choice (apologies).
Until MAY_FOLLOW_EXEC is true for linux I'd expect gdb to return control
to the user when an exec() happens.
Am I wrong in thinking gdb will lose control across the exec()?

> Exec support is somewhat horrible.  I posted a patch for it recently
> which might help (might not, I'm not sure).

I'll try to find it and give it a try.  Thanks.


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