From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12826 invoked by alias); 30 Nov 2005 02:47:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 12812 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Nov 2005 02:47:07 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Nov 2005 02:47:06 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1EhHzp-0002Ft-NX; Tue, 29 Nov 2005 21:47:01 -0500 Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:10:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Snyder Cc: Jim Blandy , GDB Patches , gdb@sources.redhat.com, Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [RFC] multi-process gdb (forks, checkpoints) Message-ID: <20051130024701.GA8632@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , Jim Blandy , GDB Patches , gdb@sources.redhat.com, Eli Zaretskii References: <438B8B6F.6010706@redhat.com> <8f2776cb0511291738o61780660n68b59380d2747540@mail.gmail.com> <438D0753.4050106@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <438D0753.4050106@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2005-11/txt/msg00505.txt.bz2 On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 05:58:43PM -0800, Michael Snyder wrote: > Jim Blandy wrote: > >What happens if we fork, and then one of the forks unloads or loads a > >shared library? > > > >We're really crippled by our symtab data structures. > > Hmmm... unload would be the bigger problem, I suppose. Yes. Eventually we just need to improve the symtab interface enough to permit this. I think it's not an unreachable goal. The user interface is going to get thornier and thornier, though. > I'd look at it this way -- this is really a subset of "debugging > separate processes". The subset is, processes that share the same > symbol set. What you suggest is crowding that boundary. ;-) > > We know that the set of programs that can be debugged this way > is prescribed. Can't do multi-threaded programs, for instance. Right - we can't duplicate them - we could more or less fake it, but they know too much about their TIDs, and their TLS, et cetera. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery, LLC