From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11127 invoked by alias); 15 Apr 2003 21:43:09 -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 11098 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2003 21:43:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (207.219.125.105) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Apr 2003 21:43:09 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A9A82B2F; Tue, 15 Apr 2003 17:43:04 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3E9C7CE8.2010003@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 21:43:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:1.0.2) Gecko/20030223 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andrew Cagney Cc: "J. Johnston" , Daniel Jacobowitz , 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> <3E6D2720.4040008@redhat.com> <3E6DF316.8030605@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2003-04/txt/msg00143.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"? This came up once before: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb/2001-03/msg00126.html shall baring major protest go with `struct ptid_info'? Andrew