From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15906 invoked by alias); 3 Nov 2008 14:30:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 15748 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Nov 2008 14:30:05 -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; Mon, 03 Nov 2008 14:29:24 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4082710C2C; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 14:29:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2769110811; Mon, 3 Nov 2008 14:29:21 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Kx0Qi-0007Pi-6F; Mon, 03 Nov 2008 09:29:20 -0500 Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 14:30:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [RFC] Share the shared library list between inferiors Message-ID: <20081103142920.GA28482@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200810272329.04758.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200810272329.04758.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: 2008-11/txt/msg00008.txt.bz2 On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 11:29:04PM +0000, Pedro Alves wrote: > There are several ways to skin this cat. This one seemed like > the smallest, most extensible and malleable one from GDB's side, because > it doesn't cast to stone any new protocol extension --- which may > prove limited to some systems (some memory regions shared, others not; > some shared but visible at different addresses in different > inferiors/cores, etc.). I was hoping we'd cross that bridge when > we start seeing those systems reporting multi process support > to GDB. > > What do people think about this? I have one request. Could you expand the comment to mention the other properties you're associating with this flag? Global breakpoints and a single common target description don't obviously follow from "global shared library list". -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery