From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9195 invoked by alias); 7 Mar 2009 12:27:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 9185 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Mar 2009 12:27:34 -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; Sat, 07 Mar 2009 12:27:28 +0000 Received: (qmail 17090 invoked from network); 7 Mar 2009 12:27:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 7 Mar 2009 12:27:26 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [remote/rfc] Let GDB know if a remote server originally attached to a process. Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 12:27:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, drow@false.org References: <200903040117.32166.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200903062124.02268.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200903071227.36757.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: 2009-03/txt/msg00094.txt.bz2 On Saturday 07 March 2009 10:29:42, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > +@item qAttached:@var{pid} > > +@cindex query attached, remote request > > +@cindex @samp{qAttached} packet > > +Return if the remote target is attached to the process with the > > +specified process ID, instead of having created it. > > This sentence probably needs to be rephrased, but I don't understand > what it means, and so cannot suggest how to rephrase it. It sounds > like you meant to say "Return an indication of whether the remote > target is attached ...", but then what is the purpose of adding > "instead of having created it"? Could you please explain? Let me try. This is about returning an indication of how did the process that is now under the stub's control originaly get under the stub's control. Was it due to an "attach"-like operation?, or, was it due to a "run"-like operation? The latter was the "created it" version. > > > @var{pid} is a > > +hexadecimal integer identifying the target process. > > There's no such thing as "hexadecimal integer". I think you mean > "an integer in hexadecimal format". Ok. > > > +This query is used to, for example, know whether the remote process > > Don't separate "to" from its verb: > > This query is used, for example, to know whether ... Ok. > > Thanks. > Thank you. -- Pedro Alves