A Wednesday 22 October 2008 14:18:22, Pedro Alves escreveu:
> On Wednesday 22 October 2008 02:02:19, Michael Snyder wrote:
> > --- remote.c    17 Oct 2008 19:43:47 -0000      1.321
> > +++ remote.c    22 Oct 2008 01:00:16 -0000
> > @@ -1433,15 +1433,15 @@ write_ptid (char *buf, const char *endbu
> >      {
> >        pid = ptid_get_pid (ptid);
> >        if (pid < 0)
> > -       buf += xsnprintf (buf, endbuf - buf, "p-%x.", -pid);
> > +       buf += xsnprintf (buf, endbuf - buf, "p-%08x.", -pid);
> >        else
> > -       buf += xsnprintf (buf, endbuf - buf, "p%x.", pid);
> > +       buf += xsnprintf (buf, endbuf - buf, "p%08x.", pid);
> >      }
> >    tid = ptid_get_tid (ptid);
> >    if (tid < 0)
> > -    buf += xsnprintf (buf, endbuf - buf, "-%x", -tid);
> > +    buf += xsnprintf (buf, endbuf - buf, "-%x08", -tid);
> >    else
> > -    buf += xsnprintf (buf, endbuf - buf, "%x", tid);
> > +    buf += xsnprintf (buf, endbuf - buf, "%x08", tid);
> >  
> >    return buf;
> 
> ( Now that I've slept a bit, :-) ) I've gone through an old version of the code
> and documentation looking for places we use write_ptid now that used to
> output %08x vs places we used to output "-1" or %x.  Indeed, I can only see
> that in remote_thread_alive.  The change above can possibly lead to other
> stubs out there (with similar assumptions to yours) not parsing e.g., Hg-000000001
> correctly, because they were expecting Hg-1, or e.g., misparsing vCont, because
> used to be "vCont;c:%x".  Also, we don't really need to use %08 when multi-process
> is in effect.  There should be no multi-process stubs around that depend
> on leading 0's.
> 
> I guess this means we get to add a new parameter to write_ptid
> (leading_zeros ?), and pass 1 where needed...  Give me a sec to cook
> something up.
> 

Could you try this out please?  It works here against gdbserver
single|multi-process, and sends a `T000000tid' (tid alive) packet when
multi-process isn't in effect.

-- 
Pedro Alves