* RFC: A mode in which gdb avoids libthread_db
@ 2003-07-26 15:58 Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-07-26 23:29 ` Elena Zannoni
2003-07-28 20:53 ` Kevin Buettner
0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2003-07-26 15:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb
Recent Linux kernels (2.5.30 and later; theoretically the latest Red Hat
2.4.20 kernels also include it, but I observed some badness in testing...)
support some ptrace extensions I designed which make it possible to debug
multi-threaded applications without using libthread_db at all. The only
things we'll lose are:
- Potential high-level information, like mutex status - right now we
don't have this at all on GNU/Linux.
- TLS access - this could be easily fixed by handling each platform's
TLS ABI directly from GDB, and there's a comment to that effect in
GDB's source already.
- TIDs - we'd only have the application's LWP IDs, not the thread IDs
that LinuxThreads/NPTL use.
Things we'll gain:
- A lot of libthread_db-related bugs would go away. For instance,
the kfail in print-threads.exp, which hits a breakpoint after
LinuxThreads decides the thread has already exited.
- ABI simplicity - this would solve the x86-64/i386 issue, and similar
problems on MIPS.
- Support for debugging clone-based 1-1 threading which doesn't use
libpthread.so.
Once the pending fork-debugging patch is accepted, most of the machinery
we'd need to do it will be in place, too. Thoughts? Worthwhile?
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: RFC: A mode in which gdb avoids libthread_db
2003-07-26 15:58 RFC: A mode in which gdb avoids libthread_db Daniel Jacobowitz
@ 2003-07-26 23:29 ` Elena Zannoni
2003-07-26 23:32 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-07-28 20:53 ` Kevin Buettner
1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Elena Zannoni @ 2003-07-26 23:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Jacobowitz; +Cc: gdb
Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> Recent Linux kernels (2.5.30 and later; theoretically the latest Red Hat
> 2.4.20 kernels also include it, but I observed some badness in testing...)
> support some ptrace extensions I designed which make it possible to debug
> multi-threaded applications without using libthread_db at all. The only
> things we'll lose are:
> - Potential high-level information, like mutex status - right now we
> don't have this at all on GNU/Linux.
> - TLS access - this could be easily fixed by handling each platform's
> TLS ABI directly from GDB, and there's a comment to that effect in
> GDB's source already.
> - TIDs - we'd only have the application's LWP IDs, not the thread IDs
> that LinuxThreads/NPTL use.
>
> Things we'll gain:
> - A lot of libthread_db-related bugs would go away. For instance,
> the kfail in print-threads.exp, which hits a breakpoint after
> LinuxThreads decides the thread has already exited.
> - ABI simplicity - this would solve the x86-64/i386 issue, and similar
> problems on MIPS.
> - Support for debugging clone-based 1-1 threading which doesn't use
> libpthread.so.
>
> Once the pending fork-debugging patch is accepted, most of the machinery
> we'd need to do it will be in place, too. Thoughts? Worthwhile?
I know first hand of the pains of mismatched glibcs, binutils,
kernels, gdbs. I wouldn't mind having this coexist with the use of
glibc, is that possible?
What ptrace changes did you do? (Elena needs to start reading
linux-kernel)
elena
>
> --
> Daniel Jacobowitz
> MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: RFC: A mode in which gdb avoids libthread_db
2003-07-26 23:29 ` Elena Zannoni
@ 2003-07-26 23:32 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-08-08 2:21 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Jacobowitz @ 2003-07-26 23:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Elena Zannoni; +Cc: gdb
On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 07:37:12PM -0400, Elena Zannoni wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz writes:
> > Recent Linux kernels (2.5.30 and later; theoretically the latest Red Hat
> > 2.4.20 kernels also include it, but I observed some badness in testing...)
> > support some ptrace extensions I designed which make it possible to debug
> > multi-threaded applications without using libthread_db at all. The only
> > things we'll lose are:
> > - Potential high-level information, like mutex status - right now we
> > don't have this at all on GNU/Linux.
> > - TLS access - this could be easily fixed by handling each platform's
> > TLS ABI directly from GDB, and there's a comment to that effect in
> > GDB's source already.
> > - TIDs - we'd only have the application's LWP IDs, not the thread IDs
> > that LinuxThreads/NPTL use.
> >
> > Things we'll gain:
> > - A lot of libthread_db-related bugs would go away. For instance,
> > the kfail in print-threads.exp, which hits a breakpoint after
> > LinuxThreads decides the thread has already exited.
> > - ABI simplicity - this would solve the x86-64/i386 issue, and similar
> > problems on MIPS.
> > - Support for debugging clone-based 1-1 threading which doesn't use
> > libpthread.so.
> >
> > Once the pending fork-debugging patch is accepted, most of the machinery
> > we'd need to do it will be in place, too. Thoughts? Worthwhile?
>
>
> I know first hand of the pains of mismatched glibcs, binutils,
> kernels, gdbs. I wouldn't mind having this coexist with the use of
> glibc, is that possible?
Sure. It could just be a switch or a "set" flag - easy enough.
> What ptrace changes did you do? (Elena needs to start reading
> linux-kernel)
Take a look at the support for "set follow-fork-mode", which I've
posted a few times. I added:
/* 0x4200-0x4300 are reserved for architecture-independent additions. */
#define PTRACE_GETEVENTMSG 0x4201
#define PTRACE_GETSIGINFO 0x4202
#define PTRACE_SETSIGINFO 0x4203
/* options set using PTRACE_SETOPTIONS */
#define PTRACE_O_TRACEFORK 0x00000002
#define PTRACE_O_TRACEVFORK 0x00000004
#define PTRACE_O_TRACECLONE 0x00000008
#define PTRACE_O_TRACEEXEC 0x00000010
#define PTRACE_O_TRACEVFORKDONE 0x00000020
#define PTRACE_O_TRACEEXIT 0x00000040
They allow a debugger to automatically detect processes as they're
created, and better signal handling.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: RFC: A mode in which gdb avoids libthread_db
2003-07-26 15:58 RFC: A mode in which gdb avoids libthread_db Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-07-26 23:29 ` Elena Zannoni
@ 2003-07-28 20:53 ` Kevin Buettner
1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Kevin Buettner @ 2003-07-28 20:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Jacobowitz, gdb
On Jul 26, 11:58am, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> Recent Linux kernels (2.5.30 and later; theoretically the latest Red Hat
> 2.4.20 kernels also include it, but I observed some badness in testing...)
> support some ptrace extensions I designed which make it possible to debug
> multi-threaded applications without using libthread_db at all. The only
> things we'll lose are:
> - Potential high-level information, like mutex status - right now we
> don't have this at all on GNU/Linux.
> - TLS access - this could be easily fixed by handling each platform's
> TLS ABI directly from GDB, and there's a comment to that effect in
> GDB's source already.
> - TIDs - we'd only have the application's LWP IDs, not the thread IDs
> that LinuxThreads/NPTL use.
>
> Things we'll gain:
> - A lot of libthread_db-related bugs would go away. For instance,
> the kfail in print-threads.exp, which hits a breakpoint after
> LinuxThreads decides the thread has already exited.
> - ABI simplicity - this would solve the x86-64/i386 issue, and similar
> problems on MIPS.
> - Support for debugging clone-based 1-1 threading which doesn't use
> libpthread.so.
>
> Once the pending fork-debugging patch is accepted, most of the machinery
> we'd need to do it will be in place, too. Thoughts? Worthwhile?
As a settable mode, this definitely sounds worthwhile.
Kevin
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: RFC: A mode in which gdb avoids libthread_db
2003-07-26 23:32 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
@ 2003-08-08 2:21 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2003-08-08 2:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel Jacobowitz; +Cc: Elena Zannoni, gdb
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 07:37:12PM -0400, Elena Zannoni wrote:
>> I know first hand of the pains of mismatched glibcs, binutils,
>> kernels, gdbs. I wouldn't mind having this coexist with the use of
>> glibc, is that possible?
>
>
> Sure. It could just be a switch or a "set" flag - easy enough.
Yes. In this mode, just restrict libthread_db to, er, visualizing
thread data structures such as the thread ID and, hopefully, eventually,
semaphore state et.al.
>> What ptrace changes did you do? (Elena needs to start reading
>> linux-kernel)
>
>
> Take a look at the support for "set follow-fork-mode", which I've
> posted a few times. I added:
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-08-08 2:21 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-07-26 15:58 RFC: A mode in which gdb avoids libthread_db Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-07-26 23:29 ` Elena Zannoni
2003-07-26 23:32 ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2003-08-08 2:21 ` Andrew Cagney
2003-07-28 20:53 ` Kevin Buettner
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).