Re: [PATCH 06/16 v3] Extended-remote Linux follow fork

Breazeal, Don
2015-01-12T22:49:49Z

On 1/12/2015 2:39 PM, Don Breazeal wrote:
> Pedro Alves wrote:

>> I'm not even seeing a fundamental need
>> to keep this for "extended-remote" alone, given gdb nowadays supports
>> the multiprocess extensions with "target remote" too.
>
> I agree that we should do this. As I described in the update to patch 04
> (https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2015-01/msg00320.html), I ran into
> several issues with implementing follow-fork for target remote. I think
> the underlying target remote support, eliminating "gdbserver exit when
> inferior terminates", deserves its own patch, and I'd like to defer that in
> favor of making progress on the extended-remote piece.
>
BTW, it would be helpful to me to have an explanation of why the two
remote protocols exist (remote and extended-remote) and what the
long-term plan or vision is for each of them. Like, will they
eventually just be merged into a single protocol? I'm pretty sure I've
had an incorrect view of this, and I haven't found an answer to "why"
by searching for it.

Thanks!
--Don