From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17842 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2009 16:33:23 -0000 Received: (qmail 17832 invoked by uid 22791); 17 Feb 2009 16:33:22 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:33:14 +0000 Received: (qmail 12300 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2009 16:33:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 17 Feb 2009 16:33:12 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: "Marc Khouzam" Subject: Re: Process exit in multi-process, and gdb's selected thread. Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 16:56:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200902170058.33653.pedro@codesourcery.com> <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA06F3077B@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA06F3077B@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200902171633.15303.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: 2009-02/txt/msg00350.txt.bz2 On Tuesday 17 February 2009 16:19:55, Marc Khouzam wrote: > > I'm thinking that we may need to extend the =thread-selected > > notification to tell the frontend that there's no thread selected, > > and perhaps the -thread-info,current-thread-id, output too. > > Your patches does not do this yet, right? Right. > > What do you think of all this, am I making sense? Or, does it > > sound like "let's hope he comes back to senses soon, for he's > > not making any"? :-) > > > > Here's my current patch that implements this, in case you > > have a stub around that implements multi-process (Hi Marc!). > > I don't think you explicitely said it (or maybe I've read too > many emails today), but I believe you are suggesting that GDB > be allowed to be in a state where no thread is selected and > this state should be handled properly when receiving commands. Yes. > > I didn't quite understand what responsibility falls on the > frontend with this suggestion. E.g., I'd like to understand what does eclipse do when it receives a "=thread-group-exited" notification, and the thread that eclipse had selected disappeared. Was it expecting that GDB changed to another random thread (and emit a =thread-selected notification), or was it supposed to select another thread itself? Or, does it also have a state of "no thread selected" in the UI? > > I wanted to try to patch to see what you meant more clearly. > However, I think this patch applies to HEAD but HEAD does > not work with my stub yet (the -list-thread-groups --available > problem). Oh, bummer. I thought you'd have some way to manually specify which process to attach to without going through that listing. -- Pedro Alves