Date: Sun, 20 Jun 2004 17:26:51 -0700 From: Marcel Moolenaar <marcel@xcllnt.net> To: Julian Elischer <julian@elischer.org> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: -lthr vs. -pthread Message-ID: <20040621002651.GA3086@dhcp50.pn.xcllnt.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0406201704050.23541-100000@InterJet.elischer.org> References: <p0602040bbcfbd35de16c@[128.113.24.47]> <Pine.BSF.4.21.0406201704050.23541-100000@InterJet.elischer.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 05:07:56PM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote: > this is a question for marcel, > but basically "this may change". In current code the thread_id of the > first thread is set to be equal to the PID. Marcel and I have discussed > reworking the thread_id code and in the new code this will possibly not > be true. Yes. We need to be sure however that we don't break core file creation. Historically the PRSTATUS note in the core file has the process ID. The current thread LWP allocation allows us to put the Thread ID in the note and have as many notes as there are threads. Non-threaded processes will create core files that are compatible with older tools. If we change the LWP allocation, we will break this and should probably use LWPSTATUS notes for the thread states and use the PRSTATUS note for the process state. In any case, this requires modifications to binutils, so needs to be coordinated. -- Marcel Moolenaar USPA: A-39004 marcel@xcllnt.net
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040621002651.GA3086>