From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20165 invoked by alias); 19 Sep 2008 16:30:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 20153 invoked by uid 22791); 19 Sep 2008 16:30:46 -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; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:29:52 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70697104AC; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:29:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E2DE1049B; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:29:50 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Kgird-0001wa-RP; Fri, 19 Sep 2008 12:29:49 -0400 Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2008 16:30:00 -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: <20080919162949.GB7120@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200809121638.59063.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200809121751.30596.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20080918232439.GE1691@caradoc.them.org> <200809191632.05874.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200809191632.05874.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/msg00417.txt.bz2 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