Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>