From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31271 invoked by alias); 5 Sep 2009 20:16:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 31260 invoked by uid 22791); 5 Sep 2009 20:16:23 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_JMF_BL,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout2.012.net.il (HELO mtaout2.012.net.il) (84.95.2.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 05 Sep 2009 20:16:16 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.i_mtaout2.012.net.il by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) id <0KPI00E00LEIAJ00@i_mtaout2.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sat, 05 Sep 2009 23:16:14 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.228.50.163]) by i_mtaout2.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2004.12) with ESMTPA id <0KPI00GCJLN1Y6A0@i_mtaout2.012.net.il>; Sat, 05 Sep 2009 23:16:13 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 05 Sep 2009 20:16:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [v4 2/2] multi-executable support In-reply-to: <200909051941.12181.pedro@codesourcery.com> To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <838wgt409z.fsf@gnu.org> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: 8BIT References: <200909030349.38319.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200909030352.43203.pedro@codesourcery.com> <83pra7992c.fsf@gnu.org> <200909051941.12181.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2009-09/txt/msg00132.txt.bz2 > From: Pedro Alves > Date: Sat, 5 Sep 2009 19:41:11 +0100 > > > So "symbol space" is actually a synonym for a "program", i.e. the set > > of code, data, and symbolic debug info that is the result of linking > > an executable? then why not call it a "program"?   > > I would like that, but I'm not sure if it is correct. If > it is, great, I'm very glad to simplify. > > I actually don't know the exact definition of what is a "program". > Are the code, data, symbolic debug info of the load shared libraries > (and of other sources, e.g., added with add-symbol-file) part of the > program as well, or is the program considered the main executable > only? I had the feeling that in GDB speak, it was the latter case. > If not, I'd be glad to s/sspaces/programs/g. > > Let me try to give concrete examples to show why I got to where > I am, and then I hope you'll be able to tell me (from the user's > perspective) with a stronger opinion, that I should really expose > sspaces as "programs" to the user, or not. Please be patient, > the email is long, but it's mostly just pastes of usage examples. Thanks for making this effort to explain things. It's late down here, and I'm after a long day of debugging the GDB build for DJGPP. I need to think about this with a fresh mind, so this will have to wait for tomorrow. For now, let me ask just one question. I believe answering it will go a long way towards defining the best paradigm and hence names for these features. Here's my question: Why do we need a container for inferiors (that you call sspace)? I understand why we need a way of starting another inferior _in_addition_to_ the existing ones (as opposed to _instead_of_ the existing one). But wouldn't it be enough to have one command -- "add-inferior", say -- to provide the same set of features you want, i.e. the ability to debug several inferiors at the same time? IOW, I don't understand why we need to group inferiors by sspaces. TIA