From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
Received: by sourceware.org (Postfix, from userid 48)
	id 52E5E3858D1E; Tue, 19 Mar 2024 18:28:31 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 sourceware.org 52E5E3858D1E
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceware.org;
	s=default; t=1710872911;
	bh=8CFXP2DDfLisicMr3JBekMNXxsOR0HlwSf0WO/u14kY=;
	h=From:To:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From;
	b=XsigCU7Z01KGGZa5EhpgeFFxiAH5ycC/IGsA/xokgaQVx4bxeOdw4U6jBiJfOoQ/R
	 nxUfyty8lympUpug/j7aSsJ8c4gIVgvNAreuYEEB/kc4gYdV0p+V6xigu7DNqpd8Y9
	 aael+d03uvk3odDc2slIAplRkcAUvK73Ao7pGkG4=
From: "thiago.bauermann at linaro dot org"
 <sourceware-bugzilla@sourceware.org>
To: gdb-prs@sourceware.org
Subject: [Bug threads/31512] gdb.threads/attach-many-short-lived-threads.exp
 sometimes fails with "process 2689792 is already traced by process 2039527"
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2024 18:28:31 +0000
X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC
X-Bugzilla-Type: changed
X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: None
X-Bugzilla-Product: gdb
X-Bugzilla-Component: threads
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: unassigned at sourceware dot org
X-Bugzilla-Target-Milestone: ---
X-Bugzilla-Flags: 
X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: 
Message-ID: <bug-31512-4717-2CyfoptyZp@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
In-Reply-To: <bug-31512-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
References: <bug-31512-4717@http.sourceware.org/bugzilla/>
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: <gdb-prs.sourceware.org>

https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=3D31512

--- Comment #1 from Thiago Jung Bauermann <thiago.bauermann at linaro dot o=
rg> ---
In bug #31312 where I first saw this issue, Tom Tromey gave a suggestion on=
 how
to investigate this problem:

> Yeah, what I would suggest is maybe modifying the test case to
> invoke 'strace gdb ..' with some options to log the strace output
> to a file; then examine the file to see if gdb correctly detaches
> from all the threads it attached to.
>=20
> That is, I'm wondering if there's some underlying bug that we haven't
> properly recognized -- this would account for the weirdness where
> one failed attach leaves gdb unable to attach in the future.

--=20
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.=