Re: to users of threads (GDB support)
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Kip Macy wrote: There's no reason freebsd-uthread.c has to be included in gdb. I think that there are instances when an individual wants to use the latest and greatest version of GDB and still have thread support. Even if the threads library does change, the objfile function should be able to take that into account. That said, I think dfr and I are the only ones that have done anything with freebsd-uthread.c, aside from obrien. My papers are on file with FSF. I don't know about dfr. dfr is your paperwork on file? I don't have any up-to-date paperwork on file right now (I did once a long time ago but that was several companies ago...) I'm quite willing to relinquish all ownership that I may have to this code. If it helps, I can claim that David O'Brien wrote it all :-) -- Doug Rabson Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +44 20 8348 6160 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: to users of threads (GDB support)
On Mon, Feb 11, 2002 at 11:55:03PM -0500, Daniel Eischen wrote: But the latest and greatest GDB (which should be a port) isn't /usr/ports/devel/gdb51 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: to users of threads (GDB support)
On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 11:15:16PM -0800, Kip Macy wrote: An updated freebsd-uthread.c with core support is available off of the same page. I only just now got it working, and have not done any regression testing, so only use it if you have to. I looked at http://www.eventdriven.org/freebsd.html, but the files there aren't usable for by the ports/devel/gdb51 port. Could you provide a patch to the ports/devel/gdb51 port that accomplished enhancing GDB 5.1 for FreeBSD? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: to users of threads (GDB support)
Loren Rittle indicated that they were, but pointed out what you have already pointed out to me: freebsd-uthread.c is the work of others so my FSF paperwork won't be enough. I'll ask him to send you the patch he created. -Kip On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, David O'Brien wrote: On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 11:15:16PM -0800, Kip Macy wrote: An updated freebsd-uthread.c with core support is available off of the same page. I only just now got it working, and have not done any regression testing, so only use it if you have to. I looked at http://www.eventdriven.org/freebsd.html, but the files there aren't usable for by the ports/devel/gdb51 port. Could you provide a patch to the ports/devel/gdb51 port that accomplished enhancing GDB 5.1 for FreeBSD? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: to users of threads (GDB support)
There's no reason freebsd-uthread.c has to be included in gdb. I think that there are instances when an individual wants to use the latest and greatest version of GDB and still have thread support. Even if the threads library does change, the objfile function should be able to take that into account. That said, I think dfr and I are the only ones that have done anything with freebsd-uthread.c, aside from obrien. My papers are on file with FSF. I don't know about dfr. dfr is your paperwork on file? -Kip To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: to users of threads (GDB support)
See my page now. It contains a pointer to a tarball with what I believe to be the appropriate style patches and a single unified diff. I'm obviously new to this so humor me and let me know if there are any further problems. --- David O'Brien [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Feb 10, 2002 at 11:15:16PM -0800, Kip Macy wrote: An updated freebsd-uthread.c with core support is available off of the same page. I only just now got it working, and have not done any regression testing, so only use it if you have to. I looked at http://www.eventdriven.org/freebsd.html, but the files there aren't usable for by the ports/devel/gdb51 port. Could you provide a patch to the ports/devel/gdb51 port that accomplished enhancing GDB 5.1 for FreeBSD? To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message __ Do You Yahoo!? Send FREE Valentine eCards with Yahoo! Greetings! http://greetings.yahoo.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: to users of threads (GDB support)
Loren Rittle indicated that they were [in a form useful to /usr/ports] Actually, to avoid all confusion, I privately wrote Kip to say that I was able to extract out his updated thread support and apply it to my local mainline binutils tree. That is a bit different than indicating the work is in proper FreeBSD /usr/port patch form or canonical FSF patch form. ;-) but pointed out what you have already pointed out to me:[...] There's no reason freebsd-uthread.c has to be included in gdb. We've been maintaining it in our own tree for some time now. There's advantages to maintaining it in our own tree anyways. Our threads library is still under development, not to mention threadsNG where a lot is probably going to change. I completely agree with the advantage listed. However, overall, I must disagree with you as one working on improving gcc3 both in general and for FreeBSD. I wouldn't disagree with you if the base gdb in FreeBSD could debug the latest C++ and Dwarf output from gcc 3. Either way, I concede that my gdb requirements are a special case... Regards, Loren -- Loren J. Rittle Senior Staff Software Engineer, Distributed Object Technology Lab Networks and Infrastructure Research Lab (IL02/2240), Motorola Labs [EMAIL PROTECTED], KeyID: 2048/ADCE34A5, FDC0292446937F2A240BC07D42763672 To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: to users of threads (GDB support)
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Kip Macy wrote: There's no reason freebsd-uthread.c has to be included in gdb. I think that there are instances when an individual wants to use the latest and greatest version of GDB and still have thread support. Even if the threads library does change, the objfile function should be able to take that into account. But the latest and greatest GDB (which should be a port) isn't likely to have a version of freebsd-uthread.c that works with the current libc_r or libpthread. We haven't even started the userland part of threadsNG so we have no idea what freebsd-uthread.c is going to look like. And when we do, expect a lot of changes to it. And just a day ago, I made a change to libc_r that requires (as yet uncommitted) mods to freebsd-uthread.c. IMHO, it doesn't make sense to include support for our threads into gdb just yet. If you import a recent gdb into current, then we already have a freebsd-uthread.c that can be modified as our threads library changes. If you make gdb a port, support for threads is going to be different depending on what version or release of FreeBSD you build for. -- Dan Eischen To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: to users of threads (GDB support)
On Mon, 11 Feb 2002, Loren James Rittle wrote: Loren Rittle indicated that they were [in a form useful to /usr/ports] Actually, to avoid all confusion, I privately wrote Kip to say that I was able to extract out his updated thread support and apply it to my local mainline binutils tree. That is a bit different than indicating the work is in proper FreeBSD /usr/port patch form or canonical FSF patch form. ;-) but pointed out what you have already pointed out to me:[...] There's no reason freebsd-uthread.c has to be included in gdb. We've been maintaining it in our own tree for some time now. There's advantages to maintaining it in our own tree anyways. Our threads library is still under development, not to mention threadsNG where a lot is probably going to change. I completely agree with the advantage listed. However, overall, I must disagree with you as one working on improving gcc3 both in general and for FreeBSD. I wouldn't disagree with you if the base gdb in FreeBSD could debug the latest C++ and Dwarf output from gcc 3. Either way, I concede that my gdb requirements are a special case... Then make a port for gdb with freebsd-uthread.c as a [patch]file. As I said in a previous email, I just made a change a day ago that requires freebsd-uthread.c to be changed. It's only going to get worse once threadsNG get underway. -- Dan Eischen To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
removing bk dependency was Re: to users of threads (GDB support)
I just realized that having it in the form of a bitkeeper archive could make it awkward to use because configure doesn't do an sccs get. I'm about to replace it with a normal tar ball. Sorry for any inconvenience. -Kip To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
try again was Re: to users of threads (GDB support)
I uploaded a new version this afternoon. You shouldn't have any more problems (I downloaded the tarball and compiled it just to verify), but if you do, let me know. -Kip To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: to users of threads (GDB support)
On Sun, 2002-02-10 at 00:55, Kip Macy wrote: A working version of gdb 5.1 with full user thread support (fixes for bin/24066, gnu/33182, and as yet unfiled seg fault when resuming from a non-running thread) is available at: http://www.eventdriven.org/freebsd.html Excellent! Thanks for doing this; not having thread support in gdb-5.1 was really starting to chafe me, especially since some mutex debugging stuff in a big chunk of code I'm working on causes gdb-4.18 to blow chunks. You mention on your page that you're willing to add in support for examining non-running threads in coredumps if people feel strongly about it. I'd absolutely love that feature -- I spend a sizable amount of time staring at coredumps of multithreaded programs, and that'd make my life a lot easier. --nat To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: to users of threads (GDB support)
An updated freebsd-uthread.c with core support is available off of the same page. I only just now got it working, and have not done any regression testing, so only use it if you have to. -Kip On 11 Feb 2002, Nat Lanza wrote: On Sun, 2002-02-10 at 00:55, Kip Macy wrote: A working version of gdb 5.1 with full user thread support (fixes for bin/24066, gnu/33182, and as yet unfiled seg fault when resuming from a non-running thread) is available at: http://www.eventdriven.org/freebsd.html Excellent! Thanks for doing this; not having thread support in gdb-5.1 was really starting to chafe me, especially since some mutex debugging stuff in a big chunk of code I'm working on causes gdb-4.18 to blow chunks. You mention on your page that you're willing to add in support for examining non-running threads in coredumps if people feel strongly about it. I'd absolutely love that feature -- I spend a sizable amount of time staring at coredumps of multithreaded programs, and that'd make my life a lot easier. --nat To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
