From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MBbJY-0004YZ-NK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:14:32 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MBbJT-0004OZ-Gp
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:14:32 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=59977 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MBbJT-0004OF-Cn
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:14:27 -0400
Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:2593)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>)
	id 1MBbJT-0000hJ-0j
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:14:27 -0400
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4])
	by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1MBbJR-0007Wv-4u
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 02 Jun 2009 17:14:25 -0400
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] fix gdbstub support for multiple threads in
	usermode, v2
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2009 22:14:22 +0100
References: <1243972429-7972-1-git-send-email-froydnj@codesourcery.com>
	<200906022108.15384.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<20090602205440.GB21107@codesourcery.com>
In-Reply-To: <20090602205440.GB21107@codesourcery.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200906022214.22865.paul@codesourcery.com>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Nathan Froyd <froydnj@codesourcery.com>

> > > thread #3 will have the same cpu_index as thread #1, which would
> > > confuse GDB.
> >
> > Really? Why doesn't GDB get confused on real machines when the PID wraps?
> > Is the real bug that we're missing some sort of thread
> > creation/destruction event reporting?
>
> Hm, this is a good point.  I think the bug is that:
>...
> I'm also not sure what to do differently that doesn't involve making
> QEMU remember what happened to all the threads it's seen until GDB asks
> about them.  Ideas?

Ok, from Daniel's response it sounds like this bit of gdb is broken.

Could we use the real TID? Seems silly to invent a new value when the host has 
already found one for us...

Paul