From: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@redhat.com>
To: Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com>
Cc: GDB Patches <gdb-patches@sourceware.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Consolidate target_mourn_inferior between GDB and gdbserver
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2016 04:19:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87h99cjzd0.fsf@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d8e7fcbd-6446-542c-025a-2d0e17757b10@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Thu, 15 Sep 2016 16:51:50 +0100")
On Thursday, September 15 2016, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 09/12/2016 05:51 AM, Sergio Durigan Junior wrote:
>> This patch consolidates the API of target_mourn_inferior between GDB
>> and gdbserver, in my continuing efforts to make sharing the
>> fork_inferior function possible between both.
>>
>> GDB's version of the function did not care about the inferior's ptid
>> being mourned, but gdbserver's needed to know this information. Since
>> it actually makes sense to pass the ptid as an argument, instead of
>> depending on a global value directly (which GDB's version did), I
>> decided to make the generic API to accept it. I then went on and
>> extended all calls being made on GDB to include a ptid argument (which
>> ended up being inferior_ptid most of the times, anyway), and now we
>> have a more sane interface.
>>
>> On GDB's side, after talking to Pedro a bit about it, we decided that
>> just an assertion to make sure that the ptid being passed is equal to
>> inferior_ptid would be enough for now, on the GDB side. We can remove
>> the assertion and perform more operations later if we ever pass
>> anything different than inferior_ptid.
>>
>> Regression tested on our BuildBot, everything OK.
>>
>
> Thanks, patch is OK.
>
>> I'd appreciate a special look at gdb/windows-nat.c's modification
>> because I wasn't really sure what to do there. It seemed to me that
>> maybe I should build a ptid out of the process information there, but
>> then I am almost sure the assertion on GDB's side would trigger.
>
> Just leave it passing inferior_ptid like all other places, which is
> a no-op. We're certain the assertion does not fail this way.
Thanks, pushed.
bc1e6c81d5b77d78282c47f6fd7f697e564a6eb6
--
Sergio
GPG key ID: 237A 54B1 0287 28BF 00EF 31F4 D0EB 7628 65FC 5E36
Please send encrypted e-mail if possible
http://sergiodj.net/
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-09-19 4:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-09-12 4:52 Sergio Durigan Junior
2016-09-15 15:51 ` Pedro Alves
2016-09-19 4:19 ` Sergio Durigan Junior [this message]
2016-09-19 14:39 ` Pedro Alves
2016-09-19 17:07 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2016-09-20 11:13 ` [PATCH] Use 'event_ptid' instead of 'resume_ptid' on startup_inferior (fix for regression on my last commit) Sergio Durigan Junior
2016-09-20 11:18 ` Pedro Alves
2016-09-20 12:32 ` Sergio Durigan Junior
2016-09-23 13:59 ` [PATCH] Consolidate target_mourn_inferior between GDB and gdbserver Jon Turney
2016-09-23 15:45 ` Pedro Alves
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87h99cjzd0.fsf@redhat.com \
--to=sergiodj@redhat.com \
--cc=gdb-patches@sourceware.org \
--cc=palves@redhat.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox