From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 12506 invoked by alias); 13 Nov 2008 20:21:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 12457 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Nov 2008 20:21:23 -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; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:20:33 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1717C10D51; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:20:26 +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 B2F4510811; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 20:20:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1L0ifv-0007ma-0q; Thu, 13 Nov 2008 15:20:23 -0500 Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2008 23:51:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Stan Shebs Cc: Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: attach to a PID using a different exec Message-ID: <20081113202022.GA29667@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Stan Shebs , Tom Tromey , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20081113192652.GA26537@caradoc.them.org> <491C895F.7030500@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <491C895F.7030500@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/msg00300.txt.bz2 On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 12:09:03PM -0800, Stan Shebs wrote: > For multi-exec GDB, I added a set-exec command for just this situation - > if you have multiple execs in the session, it's extremely difficult to > tell which (if any) corresponds to the attached process. In practice so > far, it's better than nothing, but we need more. We should have as many > heuristics as possible, and ask for a confirmation too. (I wonder if > comparing a handful of bytes, or sections, from each exec would be a > useful check...) We do basically this for libraries, in solib-svr4.c - there's a few very useful warnings there. I wouldn't mind one here... -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery