> I'd call the libthread_db
>approach broken for this purpose (a little outside its design scope
>perhaps).
I think it reflects limitations of the current libthread-db interface
rather than a broken approach.
I disagree... the concept of having a "libthread_db" with an interface
involves it being a target library, part of the system. Unless you
change its "interface" to be a data file rather than code, it requires
access to a target in order to interpret target data. That's my whole
objection to it.
Sorry, I'm lost here.