public inbox for gdb@sourceware.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* info threads
@ 2003-05-08 13:25 John S. Yates, Jr.
  2003-06-06 21:31 ` Andrew Cagney
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: John S. Yates, Jr. @ 2003-05-08 13:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gdb

I have been implementing support for "info threads"
based on the stock 5.3 release.

For the qfThreadInfo message I return a list of the
addresses of all TCBs (thread control blocks) known
to our nucleus.  It turns out that some of these
live below the 2GB boundary and some above.  Only
those TCBs that do not appear to be negative are
displayed.  Why is this?

/john
--
John S. Yates, Jr.   508 665-6897 (voice)
Netezza Inc          508 665-6811 (fax)
200 Crossing Blvd.   Framingham, MA 01701

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: info threads
  2003-05-08 13:25 info threads John S. Yates, Jr.
@ 2003-06-06 21:31 ` Andrew Cagney
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2003-06-06 21:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: John S. Yates, Jr.; +Cc: gdb

> I have been implementing support for "info threads"
> based on the stock 5.3 release.
> 
> For the qfThreadInfo message I return a list of the
> addresses of all TCBs (thread control blocks) known
> to our nucleus.  It turns out that some of these
> live below the 2GB boundary and some above.  Only
> those TCBs that do not appear to be negative are
> displayed.  Why is this?

GDB would be showing its UNIX roots. Something is likely assuming that 
any -ve is invalid.  Excatly what, I don't know.

Andrew


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: info threads
  2007-12-04 17:10       ` Jim Blandy
@ 2007-12-04 19:22         ` Daniel Jacobowitz
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 8+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2007-12-04 19:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Jim Blandy; +Cc: Michael Snyder, Brian Budge, gdb

On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 09:10:13AM -0800, Jim Blandy wrote:
> Just a thought: stripping doesn't remove the dynamic symbol table.
> I think GDB reads both the dynamic and static ELF symbol tables.
> If we could get the symbols libpthread_db needs into libpthread's
> dynamic symbol table, would that prevent stripping from breaking
> thread debugging?

The maintainers refused.  I tried this years ago.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: info threads
  2007-12-04  3:30     ` Michael Snyder
@ 2007-12-04 17:10       ` Jim Blandy
  2007-12-04 19:22         ` Daniel Jacobowitz
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Jim Blandy @ 2007-12-04 17:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Michael Snyder; +Cc: Brian Budge, gdb


Michael Snyder <msnyder at specifix.com> writes:
> On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 13:29 -0800, Brian Budge wrote:
>> Thanks for the pointer.  This was on Gentoo Linux, and libpthread was
>> indeed stripped.  I recompiled glibc with FEATURES="nostrip", and
>> everything works great.
>
> You might let the Gentoo folks know that gdb thread debugging
> will not work if they ship that library stripped.

Just a thought: stripping doesn't remove the dynamic symbol table.
I think GDB reads both the dynamic and static ELF symbol tables.
If we could get the symbols libpthread_db needs into libpthread's
dynamic symbol table, would that prevent stripping from breaking
thread debugging?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: info threads
  2007-12-03 21:29   ` Brian Budge
@ 2007-12-04  3:30     ` Michael Snyder
  2007-12-04 17:10       ` Jim Blandy
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Michael Snyder @ 2007-12-04  3:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Brian Budge; +Cc: gdb

On Mon, 2007-12-03 at 13:29 -0800, Brian Budge wrote:
> Thanks for the pointer.  This was on Gentoo Linux, and libpthread was
> indeed stripped.  I recompiled glibc with FEATURES="nostrip", and
> everything works great.

You might let the Gentoo folks know that gdb thread debugging
will not work if they ship that library stripped.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: info threads
  2007-12-02 23:56 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
@ 2007-12-03 21:29   ` Brian Budge
  2007-12-04  3:30     ` Michael Snyder
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Brian Budge @ 2007-12-03 21:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gdb

Thanks for the pointer.  This was on Gentoo Linux, and libpthread was
indeed stripped.  I recompiled glibc with FEATURES="nostrip", and
everything works great.

Thanks again,
  Brian

On Dec 2, 2007 3:56 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 03:09:04PM -0800, Brian Budge wrote:
> > Hi all -
> >
> > I'm having trouble with some of the threading interfaces of gdb.  For
> > instance, info threads prints nothing.  I have read that this means it
> > is not supported for my architecture, but I could have sworn it worked
> > before.  That being said, I switched over from x86 to x86_64 a few
> > months ago, so maybe it's just my failing memory.
>
> Architecture has nothing to do with this.  You didn't say, but I'm
> guessing you mean some distribution of GNU/Linux, right?  In that
> case, this usually means that your libpthread.so or ld.so have been
> stripped, and that separate debug files for them are not available.
>
> --
> Daniel Jacobowitz
> CodeSourcery
>

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* Re: info threads
  2007-12-02 23:09 Brian Budge
@ 2007-12-02 23:56 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
  2007-12-03 21:29   ` Brian Budge
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2007-12-02 23:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Brian Budge; +Cc: gdb

On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 03:09:04PM -0800, Brian Budge wrote:
> Hi all -
> 
> I'm having trouble with some of the threading interfaces of gdb.  For
> instance, info threads prints nothing.  I have read that this means it
> is not supported for my architecture, but I could have sworn it worked
> before.  That being said, I switched over from x86 to x86_64 a few
> months ago, so maybe it's just my failing memory.

Architecture has nothing to do with this.  You didn't say, but I'm
guessing you mean some distribution of GNU/Linux, right?  In that
case, this usually means that your libpthread.so or ld.so have been
stripped, and that separate debug files for them are not available.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

* info threads
@ 2007-12-02 23:09 Brian Budge
  2007-12-02 23:56 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 8+ messages in thread
From: Brian Budge @ 2007-12-02 23:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: gdb

Hi all -

I'm having trouble with some of the threading interfaces of gdb.  For
instance, info threads prints nothing.  I have read that this means it
is not supported for my architecture, but I could have sworn it worked
before.  That being said, I switched over from x86 to x86_64 a few
months ago, so maybe it's just my failing memory.

In any case, can someone confirm that this should or should not work
on x86_64?  Any leads on what I might do to fix this issue if it
should indeed work?

Thanks,
  Brian

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 8+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2007-12-04 19:22 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 8+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-05-08 13:25 info threads John S. Yates, Jr.
2003-06-06 21:31 ` Andrew Cagney
2007-12-02 23:09 Brian Budge
2007-12-02 23:56 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2007-12-03 21:29   ` Brian Budge
2007-12-04  3:30     ` Michael Snyder
2007-12-04 17:10       ` Jim Blandy
2007-12-04 19:22         ` Daniel Jacobowitz

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).