[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Debian's GDB still can't handle threads!



  I am almost at the point of filing a release-critical bug against gdb,
but I thought I'd ask here first so more people can flame me if I'm an idiot ;-)

  Basically, here's the problem: gdb, as distributed by Debian, cannot debug
threaded programs in any meaningful way.  (see bugs #37983, #28058, #36642,
#37672, and #44536)  I think that this is a serious problem, and that releasing
a Debian which is broken in this regard -- especially given that history
suggests that users may have to live with it for a year or so -- should not
even be considered as an option if anything else is possible [1].  I filed two
bugs last summer [because one was erroneously closed] on this issue and was told
that we're waiting for an upstream release that natively supports LinuxThreads.
(see bug #37983)  We are now, however, weeks or less from the freeze date and
no new gdb has emerged.  As I understand it (my understanding could well be
broken :) ), once the freeze has set in the upstream version of gdb may not be
changed; only the Debian build number can move.  Therefore, it seems to me
that someone should, if possible, either (1) revert gdb to a version that
works with threads (yuck), or (2) patch the current gdb to at least sort-of
work with threads. [ this is probably good enough for most stuff -- another
BTS entry says that the RedHat version does this, could someone look at it? ]

  Does anyone see a better solution?

  Daniel

  [1] I understand that the technical issues involved may be complex.  I'm not
    asking anyone to move heaven and earth here, and if it's prohibitively
    difficult I guess we'll just have to suffer a year of being known as
    'that distro with the broken gdb'.  Worse things could happen :)
      Unfortunately I have neither the expertise in gdb/LinuxThreads internals
    nor the time to work this out myself, or I'd do it instead of whining
    on -devel :-/

-- 
  I used to be indecisive, but now I'm not sure.


Reply to: