This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [patch] Fix internal-error on dead LWPs with no associated thread

From: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
To: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:43:23 +0100
Subject: Re: [patch] Fix internal-error on dead LWPs with no associated thread
References: <20090629100922.GA26882@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <200906291941.52129.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20090629213333.GA3295@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net>

On Monday 29 June 2009 22:33:33, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> I do not share this opinion - not attaching short-lived threads should not be
> allowed for performance reasons. ?When such short-lived thread crashes GDB
> should catch such crash.
> 

Sorry, this makes no sense.  GDB is automaticaly attached to cloned
threads.  You won't miss any crash.  You're thinking of discovering
threads with thread_db?

The performance issue is related with communicating the
new-thread/thread-exited to the frontend, or with printing it to
the screen with printf_unfiltered, not related to the thread
management per-se.

-- 
Pedro Alves

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [patch] Fix internal-error on dead LWPs with no associated thread
  - From: Jan Kratochvil

References:
- [patch] Fix internal-error on dead LWPs with no associated thread
  - From: Jan Kratochvil
- Re: [patch] Fix internal-error on dead LWPs with no associated thread
  - From: Pedro Alves
- Re: [patch] Fix internal-error on dead LWPs with no associated thread
  - From: Jan Kratochvil

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]