From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1685 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2008 03:11:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 1676 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Mar 2008 03:11:18 -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, 15 Mar 2008 03:10:45 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C5D8983B5 for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 03:10:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 07723983AA for ; Sat, 15 Mar 2008 03:10:44 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JaMnD-0007uk-DB for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 23:10:43 -0400 Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2008 03:11:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: linux native async mode support Message-ID: <20080315031043.GB29828@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200803140810.22883.pedro@codesourcery.com> <18395.1471.637574.722785@kahikatea.snap.net.nz> <200803150157.47855.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200803150157.47855.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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/msg00211.txt.bz2 On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 01:57:47AM +0000, Pedro Alves wrote: > we get to the point where the non-async code path is not needed anymore, > we can drop a bunch of support code. That's doesn't seem likelly to > happen anytime soon in the common code, but it can be done target by > target. Linux native and target (extended-)remote are the first > candidates. Exactly. Pedro and I both know how to do this on native Windows, and can test there. A similar version to the GNU/Linux code will work on other ptrace targets (not exactly the same, I think, but pretty close). Ttrace may need something different, but I'm sure it's possible. I suspect that procfs will be easy, for someone more familiar with it. And the various remote targets are all similar in this regard. In short, I don't think it will be very difficult to get rid of synchronous target_wait. It will probably take a year from when we get GNU/Linux and remote working, while we round up people familiar with all the various supported interfaces, and some of them we'll probably have to guess. But I think we can do it. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery