This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: Re: [patch] Fix for 'info threads' crashes if zombie threads exist
- From: Christoph Bartoschek <bartoschek at or dot uni-bonn dot de>
- To: Jan Kratochvil <lace at jankratochvil dot net>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 15:15:53 +0200
- Subject: Re: RFC: Re: [patch] Fix for 'info threads' crashes if zombie threads exist
- References: <200606191719.00530.bartoschek@or.uni-bonn.de> <20060620190740.GA31643@nevyn.them.org> <20060713040135.GY24622@nevyn.them.org>
Am Donnerstag, 13. Juli 2006 06:01 schrieb Daniel Jacobowitz:
> On Tue, Jun 20, 2006 at 03:07:40PM -0400, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > I think the real fix to this problem is going to involve less
> > dependence on thread IDs. I've been migrating the code away from that
> > and I'll try to find some time in the next week to finish the job;
> > maybe that will help.
>
> Here's an alternative patch that seems to work for the same test.
> Could one of you let me know if it also helps for the problems you saw?
>
> The main change is to remove the thread_db_thread_alive function. My
> ptid_t representation change means that we can call the linux-nat.c
> implementation directly. This change means we might have two threads
> "live" at the same time with the same TID - but they'll have different
> LWP IDs, so different PTIDs, so GDB won't get confused.
>
> It also (long overdue) removes the dependence on fill_gregset, and
> removes a not especially useful call into libthread_db for converting
> threads to strings. There are a number of more possible cleanups,
> but this hits the big ones.
Hi,
on which revision should I apply the patch to get the most meaningful results?
Greetings
Christoph Bartoschek