This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@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: [patch] Fix internal-error on dead LWPs with no associated thread

From: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
To: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:46:26 +0200
Subject: Re: [patch] Fix internal-error on dead LWPs with no associated thread
References: <20090629100922.GA26882@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <200906291941.52129.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20090629213333.GA3295@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <200906292243.24272.pedro@codesourcery.com>

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:43:23 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On Monday 29 June 2009 22:33:33, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > I do not share this opinion - not attaching short-lived threads should not be
> > allowed for performance reasons. ÂWhen such short-lived thread crashes GDB
> > should catch such crash.
> 
> Sorry, this makes no sense.  GDB is automaticaly attached to cloned
> threads.  You won't miss any crash.  You're thinking of discovering
> threads with thread_db?

I agree my comment made no sense.  I was thinking of the case when
linux_test_for_tracefork() fails and PTRACE_O_TRACEFORK is not in effect; but
that is not possible on the current systems.


Thanks,
Jan

References:
- [patch] Fix internal-error on dead LWPs with no associated thread
  - From: Jan Kratochvil
- Re: [patch] Fix internal-error on dead LWPs with no associated thread
  - From: Pedro Alves
- Re: [patch] Fix internal-error on dead LWPs with no associated thread
  - From: Jan Kratochvil
- Re: [patch] Fix internal-error on dead LWPs with no associated thread
  - From: Pedro Alves

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