Re: [RFA 03/08] multi-process support: remote multi-process extensions

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 04:32:05PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> Good question.  Originally, it was meant to only be used
> by extended-remote.
> 
> [cross reference for the archives:
>  http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2008-05/msg00166.html]
> 
> But maybe we can try to do something that is sensible
> with target remote.

There's two things I don't want to end up with: crashes or other
inconsistent behavior if you connect to a multi-process stub
using target remote (which is what I was worried about here),
and gratuitous differences between remote and extended-remote.

It seems to me that we should define the actual difference - to the
user - between target remote and target extended-remote.  Is it the
fact that kill does not disconnect you from the remote target (and
usually cause it to exit)?  If so, I don't think we should announce or
support the multiprocess extensions when using target remote.
It'll be just like things are today.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery