This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [patch] Fix for gdb.threads/staticthreads.exp failure on Linux
- From: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- To: Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov at google dot com>
- Cc: Michael Snyder <msnyder at vmware dot com>, "gdb-patches at sourceware dot org" <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 19:29:38 -0700
- Subject: Re: [patch] Fix for gdb.threads/staticthreads.exp failure on Linux
- References: <20090605222214.66E2976BC4@localhost> <8ac60eac0906151139w23c6cc2ag9307d73232753f65@mail.gmail.com> <8ac60eac0906220910p5750f455u1e3dc462035d50b6@mail.gmail.com> <4A3FC8CA.5070700@vmware.com> <8ac60eac0906221321r45c43a13g87a830f8dd3487ea@mail.gmail.com> <e394668d0907151825t12283c66rc1856a242d50332a@mail.gmail.com>
On Wed, Jul 15, 2009 at 6:25 PM, Doug Evans<dje@google.com> wrote:
> Running the testcase with --target_board=native-gdbserver doesn't have
> this problem. ?Some research as to what gdbserver is doing would be
> illuminating. ?"consistency is good": can you research what's
> happening in gdbserver that it works there, and see if it's reasonable
> to do the same thing in gdb?
I spoke too soon. gdbserver does have the same problem, I just needed
to look at gdb.log to see it.
Process /usr/local/g3/gnu/sourceware/static-threads/build/obj32/gdb/testsuite/gdb.threads/staticthreads
created; pid = 19691^M
Listening on port 2347^M
target remote localhost:2347^M
Remote debugging using localhost:2347^M
Remote debugging from host 127.0.0.1^M
Cannot get thread handle for LWP 19691: generic error^M
_start () at ../sysdeps/i386/elf/start.S:65^M
65 xorl %ebp, %ebp^M
(gdb) Cannot get thread handle for LWP 19691: generic error^M
continue^M
Continuing.^M
^M
Breakpoint 1, main (argc=<value optimized out>, argv=<value optimized
out>) at ../../../../src/gdb/testsuite/gdb.threads/staticthreads.c:51^M
51 pthread_attr_init (&attr);^M
Current language: auto; currently c^M
(gdb) PASS: gdb.threads/staticthreads.exp: rerun to main
[The "value optimized out" seems like a bug, but a different bug. :-)]