From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15917 invoked by alias); 2 Mar 2009 21:21:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 15906 invoked by uid 22791); 2 Mar 2009 21:21:30 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,BOTNET,RCVD_IN_JMF_BL,SPF_SOFTFAIL X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mtaout1.012.net.il (HELO mtaout1.012.net.il) (84.95.2.1) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 02 Mar 2009 21:21:24 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.i-mtaout1.012.net.il by i-mtaout1.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0KFW00K00E00HQ00@i-mtaout1.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Mon, 02 Mar 2009 23:22:00 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.229.248.57]) by i-mtaout1.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0KFW008VNE0N8T40@i-mtaout1.012.net.il>; Mon, 02 Mar 2009 23:22:00 +0200 (IST) Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2009 21:21:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: make attaching to stopped processes work under windows In-reply-to: <20090302195625.GA16983@troll08.nokia.trolltech.de> To: Oswald Buddenhagen Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: References: <20090226192552.GB15958@troll08.nokia.trolltech.de> <20090228004414.GA21767@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20090302100651.GA8157@troll08.nokia.trolltech.de> <20090302172305.GK26056@adacore.com> <20090302182826.GA11548@troll08.nokia.trolltech.de> <20090226192552.GB15958@troll08.nokia.trolltech.de> <20090228004414.GA21767@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20090226192552.GB15958@troll08.nokia.trolltech.de> <20090302195625.GA16983@troll08.nokia.trolltech.de> 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/msg00021.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 20:56:25 +0100 > From: Oswald Buddenhagen > > > As someone who have certainly read the patch, I can assure you that > > Chris's question didn't sound like it was answered in the comment. > > > well, then i would be thankful for questions that somehow indicate what > is missing from the comment or why it is entirely irrelevant. It is not irrelevant, but its wording is obscure and unclear, at least to me. The full comment reads: + /* Resume main thread if we are attaching to a suspended + process. + Note that we are not trying to handle multi-threaded + situations, as these are likely to be too complex anyway. + This is primarily meant to cover the case where someone + creates a process in suspended state and hands it over + to gdb (this is an abstraction - you cannot actually do + that due to Windows bugs. You need to start debugging the + process yourself, and once it has started up, you suspend + it and detach from it). */ Perhaps I read this too naively, but note how you first seem to describe a use-case: This is primarily meant to cover the case where someone creates a process in suspended state and hands it over to gdb but then immediately say that it cannot be done: this is an abstraction - you cannot actually do that due to Windows bugs. After reading this, I already become confused. You need to start debugging the process yourself, and once it has started up, you suspend it and detach from it And now I'm _really_ confused: ``detach''? didn't you say ``attach'' above? why detach from a process if you want to debug it? Of course, Chris knows much more than I do about debugging on Windows, so perhaps his difficulty with your concept was different and more deep. I will let him speak for himself. > i made an assertion and expect it to be discussed, not ignored. When your assertions are not clearly worded, it is customary to ask questions. Asking questions is not ignoring; quite the opposite: it means your work is of interest and of importance. > what cgf did left me with a blank stare and i find *that* rude > towards me. I find nothing rude in Chris's question.