Subject: Re: proc(4): updating for LWP
To: Andrew Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Andrew Cagney <email@example.com>
Date: 03/28/2003 15:34:26
> The NetSD proc(4) (AKA procfs) is fairly old and don't understand LWP at
>>all. ttrace(2) from HP-UX might be a better interface for GDB but proc(4)
>>can be useful because you don't need a program to glance at things. It
>>also seems (to me) that it'd be easier to adapter to LWPs (and get GDB
>>support) than implmenting ttrace(2) from stratch.
> that might be true, but it would move in the direction of solaris and
> linux where, if a certain pseudo-filesystem isn't mounted, lots of
> stuff just doesn't work.
GDB is a tart. It will try to work with what ever is available. If it
doesn't, then it's a bug.
More seriously, /proc is likely better long-term, it makes available a
lot more information than ttrace can. Know about `(gdb) gcore' which is
can be implemented using /proc?