From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gdb-patches-return-63794-listarch-gdb-patches=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 16710 invoked by alias); 18 May 2009 13:45:03 -0000
Received: (qmail 16640 invoked by uid 22791); 18 May 2009 13:45:02 -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; Mon, 18 May 2009 13:44:57 +0000
Received: (qmail 17251 invoked from network); 18 May 2009 13:44:56 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO orlando) (pedro@127.0.0.2)   by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 18 May 2009 13:44:56 -0000
From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: Add base linux native multi-process support.
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 13:45:00 -0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10
Cc: Tom Tromey <tromey@redhat.com>,  Paul Pluzhnikov <ppluzhnikov@google.com>
References: <200904072056.04727.pedro@codesourcery.com> <m3vdoz2nar.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <200905180327.00969.pedro@codesourcery.com>
In-Reply-To: <200905180327.00969.pedro@codesourcery.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;   charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200905181444.53703.pedro@codesourcery.com>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gdb-patches.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gdb-patches-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-05/txt/msg00357.txt.bz2

On Monday 18 May 2009 03:27:00, Pedro Alves wrote:
> In a multi-process world, I don't think we can make this conditioning
> on last_loaded be sensible anymore. =A0If the user wants to see this
> message, then he'll want it for every inferior started; it would look
> awkward to sometimes print it and sometimes not, depending on what
> version of libpthread the other inferior you're also debugging had
> just loaded. =A0Anyone disagrees?

These patches are so mechanically invasive that they've been blocking
multi-process for weeks now.  I think this is the only detail that may
need sorting out, if at all, so I think I'll go ahead with the patch,
and offer myself to fix this bit if needed.  If should be easier for
Paul to try it out as well this way (just cvs up!).

--=20
Pedro Alves