From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20657 invoked by alias); 3 Nov 2008 15:05:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 20635 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Nov 2008 15:05:15 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:04:39 +0000 Received: (qmail 13008 invoked from network); 3 Nov 2008 15:04:36 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 3 Nov 2008 15:04:36 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Daniel Jacobowitz Subject: Re: [RFC] Share the shared library list between inferiors Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2008 15:05:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200810272329.04758.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20081103142920.GA28482@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20081103142920.GA28482@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200811031504.38355.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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/msg00009.txt.bz2 On Monday 03 November 2008 14:29:20, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > 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". Certainly! Sorry about that. That came from the fact that feature implementation having had several dressings over time, and I guess I had just started seeing through the name. I could also rename the gdbarch method to something like gdbarch_code_is_shared_between_processes, if you'd like (although it sounds a bit long of a name). -- Pedro Alves