From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3773 invoked by alias); 5 Feb 2014 12:17:24 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 3762 invoked by uid 89); 5 Feb 2014 12:17:23 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,GARBLED_BODY autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 12:17:23 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1WB1Pp-0006w3-QL from Yao_Qi@mentor.com ; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 04:17:17 -0800 Received: from SVR-ORW-FEM-03.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.39]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 5 Feb 2014 04:17:17 -0800 Received: from qiyao.dyndns.org (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-03.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.39) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.247.3; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 04:17:15 -0800 Message-ID: <52F22B49.2050802@codesourcery.com> Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 12:17:00 -0000 From: Yao Qi User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: , Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/2] Create inferior fro trace file target References: <1391060652-10870-1-git-send-email-yao@codesourcery.com> <52F15433.5070305@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <52F15433.5070305@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-02/txt/msg00033.txt.bz2 On 02/05/2014 04:57 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: > I think the availability of the specific process id and thread ids > is a bit orthogonal to GDB modelling the existence of > processes/threads or not. We can always say that "there's a process, > but we don't know its PID". In fact, we do that for cores too. > That's the real question -- what model makes sense. I don't have any questions to the model in this case, however, I don't understand why Eclipse thinks "there must be a PID in the GDB trace file". Since Eclipse behaves in this way for a while, I have to accept that. > We've moved in the direction of "always a thread" a while ago, What is "always a thread"? Can you elaborate? > > In any case, both patches look OK to me, and I agree it's best to > avoid breaking Eclipse since we don't have a really good reason to > change behavior compared to previous releases right now. So, OK > for both. Thanks for fixing this. Thanks for the review. Two patches are pushed to both mainline and 7.7 branch. -- Yao (齐尧)