This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Threading support with glibc 2.2 missing???
Tuesday, January 09, 2001, 8:55:34 PM, you wrote:
YX> ----- Original Message -----
YX> From: Eugene Kuznetsov <firstname.lastname@example.org>
YX> To: <email@example.com>
YX> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2001 6:43 AM
YX> Subject: Threading support with glibc 2.2 missing???
>> I was using gdb 5.0 with glibc 2.1.2 ( ix86 Linux ) for a long
>> time, and it worked pretty well for me. A few days ago I tried
>> to upgrade my system to glibc 2.2, which I supposed to be
>> stable. Immediately I discovered that I am no longer able to
>> debug anything multithreaded at all - command 'info threads' is
>> simply ignored, 'thread' shows information only about thread #0, and
>> when program crashes with segfault, I am shown the position where it
>> was in starting thread.
YX> No. GlibC upgrading should be very cautious. GlibC2.0/2.1/2.2 are not
YX> compitable definitely. If you upgrade GlibC2.0 to GlibC2.1, even some
YX> commandline instructions will be invalid.
I didn't notice much problems with new glibc ( except this one ). I
think that glibc are backward-compatible, am I wrong?
>> I tried compiling sources of gdb from rawhide.redhat.com ( I
>> suppose it was CVS snapshot from December 15th ). There things only
>> gotten worse ( now even 'thread' does not show any meaningful
>> information ).
>> What am I doing wrong? Is there anything I can do to get
>> debugging of multithreaded programs work again ( except reverting to
>> glibc 2.1.2/gdb 5.0, of course )?
YX> Since you changed your basic system library, the conservative manner is to
YX> rebuild your GDB and other applications. That sounds horrible.
That was the first thing I did. I tried rebuilding GDB from source,
rebuilding debugged applications, rebuilding GDB from CVS snapshot.
Nothing helped. I don't know what else I should rebuild to get it
At last I just installed back 5.0 from distribution and moved away all
2.2-related libs from /lib. Everything works again now ( strange,
huh? :) ).