From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16234 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2002 17:36:44 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 15885 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2002 17:36:27 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO cygnus.com) (205.180.230.5) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Feb 2002 17:36:27 -0000 Received: from reddwarf.cygnus.com (reddwarf.sfbay.redhat.com [205.180.231.12]) by runyon.cygnus.com (8.8.7-cygnus/8.8.7) with ESMTP id JAA16552; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:36:22 -0800 (PST) Received: (from msnyder@localhost) by reddwarf.cygnus.com (8.11.2/8.11.2) id g11HTY301250; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 09:29:34 -0800 Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 09:36:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder Message-Id: <200202011729.g11HTY301250@reddwarf.cygnus.com> To: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: [RFC] remote: semantics of 'k' (kill) message Cc: cagney@redhat.com X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00005.txt.bz2 Andrew, you recently added this comment: ! FIXME: @emph{There is no description of how to operate when a specific ! thread context has been selected (ie.@: does 'k' kill only that thread?)}. Maybe with a little discussion we can resolve this? I believe the 'k' message is only sent in one context: when the user asks gdb to kill the inferior process. On a native system, that is clearly interpreted as meaning to kill all of the threads. Is there any reason why we should not agree that it means the same thing on an embedded target?