From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24021 invoked by alias); 25 Feb 2011 11:38:45 -0000 Received: (qmail 24013 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Feb 2011 11:38:45 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL,TW_WT X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout20.012.net.il (HELO mtaout20.012.net.il) (80.179.55.166) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:38:40 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout20.012.net.il by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0LH600F0088JNG00@a-mtaout20.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:38:23 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.124.53.157]) by a-mtaout20.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0LH600ENY8BXDQD0@a-mtaout20.012.net.il>; Fri, 25 Feb 2011 13:38:23 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 11:44:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH 18/18] document the new VxWorks port In-reply-to: <20110225112647.GA2254@adacore.com> To: Jerome Guitton Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83d3mgqr7y.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1298569763-18784-1-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <1298569763-18784-19-git-send-email-brobecker@adacore.com> <838vx5rzf8.fsf@gnu.org> <20110225102624.GB3211@adacore.com> <83ipw8qsfe.fsf@gnu.org> <20110225112647.GA2254@adacore.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: 2011-02/txt/msg00749.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 25 Feb 2011 12:26:47 +0100 > From: Jerome Guitton > Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > > The reason why it is not called, say, "info wtx processes", is a > > > particularity of VxWorks: most applications actually run on kernel > > > space, and share the same memory area. So they are really threads, not > > > processes. > > > > That's fine, but then why not treat them as threads? > > Well, the thing is that we have a sort of emulation of "processes" > (I'd guess that the concept of "thread group" would actually be a > better fit here) in multi-tasks mode. So we need to have a distinction > between the threads that are of interest for the debugger and the ones > that just happen to run on the same memory space. The result looks like a bad UI to me, and requires a separate command. But if that's what VxWorks users prefer, fine.