Re: Is the current gdb 5.1 broken for Linuxthreads?

["H . J . Lu" <hjl at lucon dot org>]

On Wed, Sep 19, 2001 at 04:38:51PM +0200, Eric Paire wrote:
> > BTW, debugging threaded apps under Linux will always be somewhat
> > fragile as long as there isn't a sane kernel threads interface to the
> > kernel.  There should be an interface to stop all threads in a
> > synchronous way.  Unfortunately, I have no hope that such an interface
> > will be added to the kernel.
> > 
> I don't agree with you: There are at least 2 bugs in the current Linux
> kernel which makes you think that the support is fragile:
> 1) SIGSTOP management is not-POSIX conformant
> 2) reparenting of debugged processes is buggy
> 

Could you please provide testcases for them? Even better, do you have
kernel patches?

> 
> > > BTW, people may be very disappointed at the current Linuxthreads
> > > support in gdb 5.1.
> > 
> > If they are they should help improving it.  Several people have
> > reported problems.  Most of these I have been unable to reproduce.
> > Hardly anyone even bothers to answer me if I ask for a small
> > self-contained testcase for the problem.
> > 

I provided one small self-contained testcase to show 3 problems:

1. Attach none-first thread doesn't work on dynamic binaries.
2. Attach none-first thread doesn't work on static binaries.
3. Attach first thread doesn't work on static binaries.

Can anyone duplicate them?


H.J.