From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24671 invoked by alias); 31 May 2009 20:46:26 -0000 Received: (qmail 24655 invoked by uid 22791); 31 May 2009 20:46:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sun, 31 May 2009 20:45:37 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n4VKja5T004588 for ; Sun, 31 May 2009 16:45:36 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n4VKjZvH000891; Sun, 31 May 2009 16:45:35 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-12-167.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.12.167]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n4VKjYZf007989; Sun, 31 May 2009 16:45:34 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id C24EE3785B9; Sun, 31 May 2009 14:45:33 -0600 (MDT) To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Move the multi-forks support to the generic multi-inferiors support. References: <200905310013.38916.pedro@codesourcery.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: tromey@redhat.com Date: Sun, 31 May 2009 20:46:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <200905310013.38916.pedro@codesourcery.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Sun\, 31 May 2009 00\:13\:38 +0100") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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: 2009-05/txt/msg00669.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves writes: Pedro> So, what I want to do is, to get rid of the linux-fork.c "multi-forks" Pedro> support, replace it with generic "multi-inferior" support, but Pedro> leave the checkpoint support there. That is what the patch Pedro> below does. Your plan sounds good to me. (I didn't read the patch yet, so no comments on that.) Pedro> In fact, I believe that the correct abstraction is for all Pedro> these checkpoint forks to be associated with the same inferior Pedro> id. Pedro> | info forks | delete, replaced by the | Pedro> | | generic "info inferiors" | I guess "info inferiors" would show all the checkpointed forks for a given inferior? BTW, I think the "info inferiors" output still needs cleaning up, a la http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-11/msg00666.html Pedro> What do you think? Do it. Tom