This is the mail archive of the gdb@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: RFC: Two small remote protocol extensions



> When reading or writing memory, gdb specifies a thread.  If it turns out

>> that the thread disappeared, GDB picks a thread, any thread (the
>> assumption being that all address spaces are pretty much similar).
>>
>> Mind you, I've seen thread implementations that implemented per-thread
>> local data using VM.

>
>
> It does not mean that everybody else should suffer, it is time to fix
> this youthful indiscretion.

Humor me.  So who is suffering?

All things embedded and I suppose it is a much bigger market/user group
than ***ix one.
Why are ``all things embedded'' suffering?

I know of two cases:

a) The threads have a 100% shared address space. Binding memory accesses to a thread will make zero difference.

b) The threads do not have a 100% shared address space. Binding memory accesses to a thread will at least make it better reflect GDB's view of a threads address space.

Andrew



Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]