From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26823 invoked by alias); 11 Mar 2003 00:00:33 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 26800 invoked from network); 11 Mar 2003 00:00:32 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO touchme.toronto.redhat.com) (172.16.49.200) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 11 Mar 2003 00:00:32 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (toocool.toronto.redhat.com [172.16.14.72]) by touchme.toronto.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F86A80001E; Mon, 10 Mar 2003 19:00:32 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <3E6D2720.4040008@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:00:00 -0000 From: "J. Johnston" Organization: Red Hat Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gcore and nptl threads on linux References: <3E653983.8010005@redhat.com> <20030305005218.GA9222@nevyn.them.org> <3E662E68.7010205@redhat.com> <20030305172511.GB4425@nevyn.them.org> <3E669CA1.2010201@redhat.com> <3E66A408.5020802@redhat.com> <3E67ACDD.6050205@redhat.com> <20030306202058.GA971@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-03/txt/msg00149.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Thu, Mar 06, 2003 at 03:17:33PM -0500, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >>>>You mean add them to the `struct thread_info' list? Why not (ignoring >>>>technical realities for the moment :-)? >>> >>> >>>How about a second list made up of thread_info structs for lwps? That >>>way, the current >>>thread routines wouldn't have to constantly validate whether the list item >>>was >>>a thread or lwp. This also would simplify the numbering system. There >>>could be equivalent lwp routines for accessing the list (e.g. >>>iterate_over_lwps() ). >> >>Something like that. Is a new term needed though? >> >>Have the thread and lwp code each have their own instance of a `struct >>tpid_info' list (struct context_info list)? > > > Hmm, I'm not sure. Let's take a little while to think about a better > name? > How about uow_info with uow standing for "unit of work"? -- Jeff J.