From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 566 invoked by alias); 9 Apr 2005 11:28:41 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 464 invoked from network); 9 Apr 2005 11:28:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 9 Apr 2005 11:28:26 -0000 Received: from zaretski (IGLD-83-130-244-206.inter.net.il [83.130.244.206]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.6-GR) with ESMTP id AYD83304 (AUTH halo1); Sat, 9 Apr 2005 14:28:24 +0300 (IDT) Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 11:28:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Message-ID: <01c53cf6$Blat.v2.4$c2abfd80@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Subject: vCont request Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii X-SW-Source: 2005-04/txt/msg00048.txt.bz2 Can someone please tell me what is the advantage of using the vCont request in the remote protocol? >From reading the sources, I see that remote.c:remote_resume uses an alternative method via the `c' or `s' packets, but it isn't clear why vCont is preferred. From various hints in the manual I vaguely understand that this involves resuming different threads with different conditions/signals, but the details are sketchy at best. In particular, what GDB user-level commands are affected by availability of vCont? I need this information to clarify the relevant manual sections. TIA