From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11181 invoked by alias); 8 Jun 2009 15:43:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 11168 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Jun 2009 15:43:44 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:43:32 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 971FB10F6B; Mon, 8 Jun 2009 15:43:30 +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 7A9DE10F6A; Mon, 8 Jun 2009 15:43:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MDh0S-0005WM-3Q; Mon, 08 Jun 2009 11:43:28 -0400 Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 15:43:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Refuse following the vfork parent if not letting the child run. Message-ID: <20090608154328.GA21076@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <200906081431.38913.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20090608143111.GA14456@caradoc.them.org> <200906081540.24300.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200906081604.35800.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200906081604.35800.pedro@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: 2009-06/txt/msg00181.txt.bz2 On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 04:04:35PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > On Monday 08 June 2009 15:40:23, Pedro Alves wrote: > > > > Is this actually a fork-following error, and we've stopped execution? > > > > I guess you could call it an error. We can't satisfy the users request, > > so we kind of stopped execution --- in reality, we're refusing to > > continue execution, as the inferior is stopped already. > > How about? > > (gdb) n > error resuming execution: can not resume the parent of a vfork in the > foreground if not letting the child run until it execs or exits, as > it would lock the terminal and hang the debug session. > 0x00007ffff789aee4 in vfork () from /lib/libc.so.6 > (gdb) >From the user's point of view, we might have failed to resume, or we might have stopped a running program. It's always helpful to offer a suggestion. Something like: (gdb) n Can not resume the parent process over vfork while holding the child stopped. Try "set SOMETHING" or "set SOMETHING ELSE". Also, what about MI? -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery