From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9808 invoked by alias); 12 Sep 2009 16:58:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 9799 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Sep 2009 16:58:52 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,J_CHICKENPOX_55,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,RCVD_IN_JMF_BL,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from eir.is.scarlet.be (HELO eir.is.scarlet.be) (193.74.71.27) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:58:48 +0000 Received: from [172.17.1.10] (ip-81-11-242-113.dsl.scarlet.be [81.11.242.113]) by eir.is.scarlet.be (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n8CGwWwp004373; Sat, 12 Sep 2009 18:58:33 +0200 Subject: Re: Build question From: Danny Backx Reply-To: danny.backx@scarlet.be To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-Reply-To: <200909121603.15919.pedro@codesourcery.com> References: <1250803105.11282.96.camel@pavilion> <200909111622.34265.pedro@codesourcery.com> <1252766961.8804.38.camel@pavilion> <200909121603.15919.pedro@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:58:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1252774843.8804.49.camel@pavilion> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-DCC-scarlet.be-Metrics: eir 20001; Body=3 Fuz1=3 Fuz2=3 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2009-09/txt/msg00370.txt.bz2 I took the liberty of changing the order of some of the quotes below. On Sat, 2009-09-12 at 16:03 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > And this is also working as expected? What's the problem then? No problem, a question : > On Saturday 12 September 2009 15:49:21, Danny Backx wrote: > > On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 16:22 +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > > > On Friday 11 September 2009 15:42:53, Danny Backx wrote: > > > > Question : it looks like breaking a gdb-gdbserver session always kills > > > > the inferior. Or at least it does so on my target. Has this been subject > > > > of research yet ? I would expect it to be possible to detach without > > > > killing the inferior, much like you can when debugging a linux process > > > > from a linux gdb. > > > > > > What do you mean by breaking, and what do you mean by > > > detaching? Please be specific. > > > > Good question :-) Turns out I had not analysed my question sufficiently > > before sending this mail. > > > > What I was looking for is for gdbserver (and the inferior) to linger > > after disconnecting gdb-gdbserver, until I reconnect to it with maybe > > another gdb session. > > > > Maybe my question is a bit too funky. I'll try to rephrase my question by means of a scenario : 1- start gdbserver (with inferior being debugged) 2- start gdb 3- connect gdb to gdbserver 4- do some debugging 5- notice that something's wrong 6- ?? tell gdbserver not to terminate when disconnected 7- tell gdb to disconnect from gdbserver 8- quit gdb 9- ... gdbserver+inferior are lingering (doing nothing until another gdb connects to it) 10- start another gdb 11- connect gdb to lingering gdbserver 12- continue debugging What I am asking if this functionality is present, and whether it makes sense to create it. Danny -- Danny Backx ; danny.backx - at - scarlet.be ; http://danny.backx.info