From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19497 invoked by alias); 20 Nov 2008 16:53:33 -0000 Received: (qmail 19386 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Nov 2008 16:53:32 -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; Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:52:36 +0000 Received: (qmail 5305 invoked from network); 20 Nov 2008 16:52:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 20 Nov 2008 16:52:34 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: "Ulrich Weigand" Subject: Re: Fix foll-fork.exp foll-vfork.exp fork-child-threads.exp Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2008 02:09:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200811201636.mAKGawpG029010@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <200811201636.mAKGawpG029010@d12av02.megacenter.de.ibm.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200811201652.35125.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/msg00564.txt.bz2 On Thursday 20 November 2008 16:36:58, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Looks good to me, thanks. Thanks. I'll check it in. > As a separate question, I'm wondering why this is the right place to > put the follow-fork logic anyway (and not in handle_inferior_event > like follow-exec ...). Do you know the history of this? To be able to decide if you want to follow a child or a parent when you catch a fork with "catch fork". There's nothing to decide to follow or not on a "catch exec", the image has already been replaced when you get the event, so gdb must load the new symbols before dropping to the user/cli. -- Pedro Alves