From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 597323858CDA; Tue, 16 Apr 2024 04:56:51 +0000 (GMT) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 597323858CDA DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org; s=default; t=1713243411; bh=x1QC6PPSLdoTa/p14LKMhX9Csfo/iTxE4bM9tPcjoEE=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=nKjheW4w7PJltZMGIlu2+30+BEBoadcZY4OFYrs7kCTjZLAIb+GRtdaRIhUk12Ksr JL7QYB3VXtsl1INtafOcSxZntUAsdaBgFpV6UAucbH+gP5Ixpa+L2pS+qzr+Wcd4c0 mcgLjAYsOGcOZhQYKRZaGpeRszyK2GNnNlPvbrPQ= From: "thiago.bauermann at linaro dot org" To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org Subject: [Bug testsuite/31312] attach-many-short-lived-threads gives inconsistent results Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2024 04:56:50 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb X-Bugzilla-Component: testsuite X-Bugzilla-Version: HEAD X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: thiago.bauermann at linaro dot org X-Bugzilla-Status: UNCONFIRMED X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P2 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: cel at linux dot ibm.com X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: 15.1 X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bugzilla-URL: http://sourceware.org/bugzilla/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 List-Id: https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D31312 --- Comment #26 from Thiago Jung Bauermann --- (In reply to Joel Brobecker from comment #25) > Hi Thiago, Hello Joel, > Would you be able to share an update on this PR? As I understand it, > Pedro suggested an alternative approach: >=20 > I.e., in gdb, make attach_proc_task_lwp_callback return false/0 here: > Have you had a chance to try that, by any chance? Sorry for not coming back to this earlier. I had tried Pedro's approach (on= ly today I realized that I had accidentally sent my first response just to Ped= ro back when he suggested it), but I needed to take some time to investigate w= hy it didn't work back then. I was finally able to understand it today, and I explain it here: https://inbox.sourceware.org/gdb-patches/87msptgbey.fsf@linaro.org/ TL;DR: there are two ways of solving the problem, neither of which is ideal (because it's impossible for GDB to be certain when the inferior has stopped creating new threads). So it's a matter of choosing between my patch series= or Pedro's suggestion. --=20 You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug.=