This is the mail archive of the
gdb-prs@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
[Bug threads/18600] After forking and threads spawning, gdb leaves newly created threads stopped
- From: "cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org" <sourceware-bugzilla at sourceware dot org>
- To: gdb-prs at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 30 Jul 2015 17:55:21 +0000
- Subject: [Bug threads/18600] After forking and threads spawning, gdb leaves newly created threads stopped
- Auto-submitted: auto-generated
- References: <bug-18600-4717 at http dot sourceware dot org/bugzilla/>
https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=18600
--- Comment #3 from cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org <cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org> ---
The master branch has been updated by Pedro Alves <palves@sourceware.org>:
https://sourceware.org/git/gitweb.cgi?p=binutils-gdb.git;h=69dde7dcb81f6baf2b823dcc03e040c29ee5de7d
commit 69dde7dcb81f6baf2b823dcc03e040c29ee5de7d
Author: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Date: Wed Jul 22 18:01:46 2015 +0100
PR threads/18600: Inferiors left around after fork+thread spawn
The new gdb.threads/fork-plus-threads.exp test exposes one more
problem. When one types "info inferiors" after running the program,
one see's a couple inferior left still, while there should only be
inferior #1 left. E.g.:
(gdb) info inferiors
Num Description Executable
4 process 8393 /home/pedro/bugs/src/test
2 process 8388 /home/pedro/bugs/src/test
* 1 <null> /home/pedro/bugs/src/test
(gdb) info threads
Calling prune_inferiors() manually at this point (from a top gdb) does
not remove them, because they still have inf->pid != 0 (while they
shouldn't). This suggests that we never mourned those inferiors.
Enabling logs (master + previous patch) we see:
...
WL: waitpid Thread 0x7ffff7fc2740 (LWP 9513) received Trace/breakpoint
trap (stopped)
WL: Handling extended status 0x03057f
LHEW: Got clone event from LWP 9513, new child is LWP 9579
[New Thread 0x7ffff37b8700 (LWP 9579)]
WL: waitpid Thread 0x7ffff7fc2740 (LWP 9508) received 0 (exited)
WL: Thread 0x7ffff7fc2740 (LWP 9508) exited.
^^^^^^^^
[Thread 0x7ffff7fc2740 (LWP 9508) exited]
WL: waitpid Thread 0x7ffff7fc2740 (LWP 9499) received 0 (exited)
WL: Thread 0x7ffff7fc2740 (LWP 9499) exited.
[Thread 0x7ffff7fc2740 (LWP 9499) exited]
RSRL: resuming stopped-resumed LWP Thread 0x7ffff37b8700 (LWP 9579) at
0x3615ef4ce1: step=0
...
(gdb) info inferiors
Num Description Executable
5 process 9508 /home/pedro/bugs/src/test
^^^^
4 process 9503 /home/pedro/bugs/src/test
3 process 9500 /home/pedro/bugs/src/test
2 process 9499 /home/pedro/bugs/src/test
* 1 <null> /home/pedro/bugs/src/test
(gdb)
...
Note the "Thread 0x7ffff7fc2740 (LWP 9508) exited." line.
That's this in wait_lwp:
/* Check if the thread has exited. */
if (WIFEXITED (status) || WIFSIGNALED (status))
{
thread_dead = 1;
if (debug_linux_nat)
fprintf_unfiltered (gdb_stdlog, "WL: %s exited.\n",
target_pid_to_str (lp->ptid));
}
}
That was the leader thread reporting an exit, meaning the whole
process is gone. So the problem is that this code doesn't understand
that an WIFEXITED status of the leader LWP should be reported to
infrun as process exit.
gdb/ChangeLog:
2015-07-30 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
PR threads/18600
* linux-nat.c (wait_lwp): Report to the core when thread group
leader exits.
gdb/testsuite/ChangeLog:
2015-07-30 Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
PR threads/18600
* gdb.threads/fork-plus-threads.exp: Test that "info inferiors"
only shows inferior 1.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.