From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6854 invoked by alias); 10 Jul 2003 12:41:35 -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 6847 invoked from network); 10 Jul 2003 12:41:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO ausmtp02.au.ibm.com) (202.81.18.187) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 10 Jul 2003 12:41:34 -0000 Received: from sd0112e0.au.ibm.com (d23rh903.au.ibm.com [202.81.18.201]) by ausmtp02.au.ibm.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h6ACgD27025148 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:42:15 +1000 Received: from d23m0060.in.ibm.com (d23av02.au.ibm.com [9.190.250.243]) by sd0112e0.au.ibm.com (8.12.9/NCO/VER6.5) with ESMTP id h6ACQq8d091986 for ; Thu, 10 Jul 2003 22:27:24 +1000 Subject: gdb/568: Cannot find user-level thread for LWP 1530: generic error - Occurs in 5.3 too To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Message-ID: From: Srikrishnan Sundararajan Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2003 12:41:00 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2003-07/txt/msg00121.txt.bz2 Hi, When I'm running my MT program(using pthreads) in gdb-5.3, I came across "Cannot find user-level thread for LWP 1530: generic error". A google search showed that gdb bug#568 was similar. ( http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-prs/2002-q2/msg00278.html) I compiled and ran gdb-5.3/gdb/testsuite/gdb.threads/killed.c under gdb-5,3. This also gave the same error. Is this a known bug without a solution? (I found in the gdb bug database that it is still unassigned) I found a supposed patch at as RFA:gdb/568 at http://sources.redhat.com/ml/gdb-patches/2002-07/msg00614.html. Upon applying this patch, I had the following output while running the killed.c under gdb. __ [New Thread 1024 (LWP 18387)] [New Thread 2049 (LWP 18388)] [New Thread 1026 (LWP 18389)] Program exited normally. (gdb) ____ My questions: 1. Is this a known problem? 2. Is RFA mentioned above a solution? If so, why is it not included in the source code? 3. Any suggestions on how to solve/work around this problem? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks, Srikrishnan