From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10818 invoked by alias); 8 Mar 2008 20:54:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 10809 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Mar 2008 20:54:05 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:53:45 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53D24983A0; Sat, 8 Mar 2008 20:53:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2BD4898329; Sat, 8 Mar 2008 20:53:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JY635-00075b-4n; Sat, 08 Mar 2008 15:53:43 -0500 Date: Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:54:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Nick Roberts Cc: Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Async mode fixes. Message-ID: <20080308205343.GA27235@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Nick Roberts , Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200803051027.29575.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <18385.48967.964309.898509@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <200803081158.40723.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <18386.63679.965070.279756@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <18386.63679.965070.279756@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2008-03/txt/msg00073.txt.bz2 On Sun, Mar 09, 2008 at 09:36:15AM +1300, Nick Roberts wrote: > I think the command "target async" is a bit misleading and it should really be > called "target remote-async" (I'm not really suggesting changing it). I agree that the name is misleading. Also, it's not documented, and we can be pretty sure that no one uses it. So I think we can rename it if we want - and what I really want is to get rid of it entirely. > My changes aren't just for Linux, but an exec target. I mean native debugging > (I think) with just one implementation - linux. It sounds like I'm inflating > what I've done but other native targets can presumably be adapted to make use > of the changes in inf-ptrace.c, exec.c etc. I think you mean "child" target? target exec just reads an exec file on disk. > If all targets could run asynchronously, then it seems that that mode should > be specified at startup: > > gdb --async myprog Can it just be the default, once we get it working? If I understand correctly, the async-ness of the target should not affect the CLI at all. It lets you use "continue&" in addition to "continue", but existing commands should keep working as before. Async mode seems inherently superior. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery