Re: [rfa] Delete keep_thread_db

[Michael Snyder <msnyder at redhat dot com>]

Andrew Cagney wrote:
> It would appear that, at one stage, this variable had something to do 
> with corefiles, static programs and threads.  That's no longer the case 
> so this deletes the stray global.
>
> Tested on FC3 with no regressions,
>
> Ok?
> Andrew

I would have to defer to Mark Kettenis, since he added the
variable, and from the ChangeLogs, seems to be the only one
who's touched it.



> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Index: ChangeLog
> 2004-09-05  Andrew Cagney  <cagney@gnu.org>
>
> 	* thread-db.c (keep_thread_db): Delete.
> 	(thread_db_new_objfile, thread_db_create_inferior)
> 	(thread_db_mourn_inferior): Simplify assuming !keep_thread_db.
>
> Index: thread-db.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /cvs/src/src/gdb/thread-db.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.43
> diff -p -u -r1.43 thread-db.c
> --- thread-db.c	22 Jul 2004 01:31:49 -0000	1.43
> +++ thread-db.c	5 Sep 2004 15:57:45 -0000
> @@ -63,10 +63,6 @@ static void (*target_new_objfile_chain) 
>  /* Non-zero if we're using this module's target vector.  */
>  static int using_thread_db;
>  
> -/* Non-zero if we have to keep this module's target vector active
> -   across re-runs.  */
> -static int keep_thread_db;
> -
>  /* Non-zero if we have determined the signals used by the threads
>     library.  */
>  static int thread_signals;
> @@ -673,8 +669,6 @@ thread_db_new_objfile (struct objfile *o
>  	  using_thread_db = 0;
>  	}
>  
> -      keep_thread_db = 0;
> -
>        goto quit;
>      }
>  
> @@ -703,18 +697,6 @@ thread_db_new_objfile (struct objfile *o
>        push_target (&thread_db_ops);
>        using_thread_db = 1;
>  
> -      /* If the thread library was detected in the main symbol file
> -         itself, we assume that the program was statically linked
> -         against the thread library and well have to keep this
> -         module's target vector activated until forever...  Well, at
> -         least until all symbols have been discarded anyway (see
> -         above).  */
> -      if (objfile == symfile_objfile)
> -	{
> -	  gdb_assert (proc_handle.pid == 0);
> -	  keep_thread_db = 1;
> -	}
> -
>        /* We can only poke around if there actually is a child process.
>           If there is no child process alive, postpone the steps below
>           until one has been created.  */
> @@ -1106,12 +1088,8 @@ static void
>  thread_db_create_inferior (char *exec_file, char *allargs, char **env,
>  			   int from_tty)
>  {
> -  if (!keep_thread_db)
> -    {
> -      unpush_target (&thread_db_ops);
> -      using_thread_db = 0;
> -    }
> -
> +  unpush_target (&thread_db_ops);
> +  using_thread_db = 0;
>    target_beneath->to_create_inferior (exec_file, allargs, env, from_tty);
>  }
>  
> @@ -1141,17 +1119,9 @@ thread_db_mourn_inferior (void)
>  
>    target_beneath->to_mourn_inferior ();
>  
> -  /* Detach thread_db target ops if not dealing with a statically
> -     linked threaded program.  This allows a corefile to be debugged
> -     after finishing debugging of a threaded program.  At present,
> -     debugging a statically-linked threaded program is broken, but
> -     the check is added below in the event that it is fixed in the
> -     future.  */
> -  if (!keep_thread_db)
> -    {
> -      unpush_target (&thread_db_ops);
> -      using_thread_db = 0;
> -    }
> +  /* Detach thread_db target ops.  */
> +  unpush_target (&thread_db_ops);
> +  using_thread_db = 0;
>  }
>  
>  static int