From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8966 invoked by alias); 7 Mar 2009 14:20:10 -0000 Received: (qmail 8958 invoked by uid 22791); 7 Mar 2009 14:20:09 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout6.012.net.il (HELO mtaout6.012.net.il) (84.95.2.16) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Sat, 07 Mar 2009 14:20:02 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.i-mtaout6.012.net.il by i-mtaout6.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KG5000003M8NL00@i-mtaout6.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Sat, 07 Mar 2009 16:20:41 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([77.127.192.247]) by i-mtaout6.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KG5000Z03UEGBP0@i-mtaout6.012.net.il>; Sat, 07 Mar 2009 16:20:39 +0200 (IST) Date: Sat, 07 Mar 2009 14:20:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [remote/rfc] Let GDB know if a remote server originally attached to a process. In-reply-to: <200903071227.36757.pedro@codesourcery.com> To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, brobecker@adacore.com, drow@false.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: References: <200903040117.32166.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200903062124.02268.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200903071227.36757.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: 2009-03/txt/msg00095.txt.bz2 > From: Pedro Alves > Date: Sat, 7 Mar 2009 12:27:36 +0000 > Cc: brobecker@adacore.com, > drow@false.org > > On Saturday 07 March 2009 10:29:42, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > > > +@item qAttached:@var{pid} > > > +@cindex query attached, remote request > > > +@cindex @samp{qAttached} packet > > > +Return if the remote target is attached to the process with the > > > +specified process ID, instead of having created it. > > > > This sentence probably needs to be rephrased, but I don't understand > > what it means, and so cannot suggest how to rephrase it. It sounds > > like you meant to say "Return an indication of whether the remote > > target is attached ...", but then what is the purpose of adding > > "instead of having created it"? Could you please explain? > > Let me try. This is about returning an indication of how did the > process that is now under the stub's control originaly get under > the stub's control. Was it due to an "attach"-like operation?, or, was > it due to a "run"-like operation? The latter was the "created it" > version. In that case, I suggest this text: Return an indication of whether the remote stub attached to an existing process or created a new process.