From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25240 invoked by alias); 18 Sep 2008 23:25:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 25215 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Sep 2008 23:25:21 -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; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:24:42 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E847B10004; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:24:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C2FA110003; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:24:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KgSrX-0006zn-8R; Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:24:39 -0400 Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2008 23:25:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFA 03/08] multi-process support: remote multi-process extensions Message-ID: <20080918232439.GE1691@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200809121638.59063.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200809121751.30596.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200809121751.30596.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-09/txt/msg00399.txt.bz2 On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 05:51:30PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > 2008-09-12 Pedro Alves > > Implement multi-process extensions. This looks basically OK to me. I've got one question, which is not bad for a patch this size :-) What about "target remote" vs "target extended-remote"? Are you always expected to use target extended-remote to connect to a multi-process target, and if so, should we enforce that? Or are remote and extended-remote supposed to behave the same if the target is multi-process? I ask because of the change in remote_detach_1. If rs->multi_process_aware is set, we never unregister from the target. But we call target_mourn_inferior which will unpush the remote target in that case. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery