* [RFC] remote: semantics of 'k' (kill) message
@ 2002-02-01 9:36 Michael Snyder
2002-02-03 18:32 ` Andrew Cagney
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Michael Snyder @ 2002-02-01 9:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: gdb-patches; +Cc: cagney
Andrew, you recently added this comment:
! FIXME: @emph{There is no description of how to operate when a specific
! thread context has been selected (ie.@: does 'k' kill only that thread?)}.
Maybe with a little discussion we can resolve this?
I believe the 'k' message is only sent in one context:
when the user asks gdb to kill the inferior process.
On a native system, that is clearly interpreted as meaning
to kill all of the threads. Is there any reason why we
should not agree that it means the same thing on an
embedded target?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [RFC] remote: semantics of 'k' (kill) message
2002-02-01 9:36 [RFC] remote: semantics of 'k' (kill) message Michael Snyder
@ 2002-02-03 18:32 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-02-03 22:59 ` Michael Snyder
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Cagney @ 2002-02-03 18:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Michael Snyder; +Cc: gdb-patches, cagney
> Andrew, you recently added this comment:
>
> ! FIXME: @emph{There is no description of how to operate when a specific
> ! thread context has been selected (ie.@: does 'k' kill only that thread?)}.
>
> Maybe with a little discussion we can resolve this?
> I believe the 'k' message is only sent in one context:
> when the user asks gdb to kill the inferior process.
> On a native system, that is clearly interpreted as meaning
> to kill all of the threads. Is there any reason why we
> should not agree that it means the same thing on an
> embedded target?
Hmm, yes. You're right. I shouldn't be trying to specify ``future
behavour'' in the protocol. Rather it should just be specifying things
based on GDB's existing behavour on a well implemented native system.
Andrew
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread* Re: [RFC] remote: semantics of 'k' (kill) message
2002-02-03 18:32 ` Andrew Cagney
@ 2002-02-03 22:59 ` Michael Snyder
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Michael Snyder @ 2002-02-03 22:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Andrew Cagney; +Cc: Michael Snyder, gdb-patches, cagney
Andrew Cagney wrote:
>
> > Andrew, you recently added this comment:
> >
> > ! FIXME: @emph{There is no description of how to operate when a specific
> > ! thread context has been selected (ie.@: does 'k' kill only that thread?)}.
> >
> > Maybe with a little discussion we can resolve this?
> > I believe the 'k' message is only sent in one context:
> > when the user asks gdb to kill the inferior process.
> > On a native system, that is clearly interpreted as meaning
> > to kill all of the threads. Is there any reason why we
> > should not agree that it means the same thing on an
> > embedded target?
>
> Hmm, yes. You're right. I shouldn't be trying to specify ``future
> behavour'' in the protocol. Rather it should just be specifying things
> based on GDB's existing behavour on a well implemented native system.
Well, we might conceivably want to be able to kill
a specified thread or process on an embedded system --
but at present we can't do that on a native system either.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-02-04 6:59 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-02-01 9:36 [RFC] remote: semantics of 'k' (kill) message Michael Snyder
2002-02-03 18:32 ` Andrew Cagney
2002-02-03 22:59 ` Michael Snyder
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox