From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6883 invoked by alias); 10 Apr 2006 18:08:46 -0000 Received: (qmail 6875 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Apr 2006 18:08:45 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from e36.co.us.ibm.com (HELO e36.co.us.ibm.com) (32.97.110.154) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:08:43 +0000 Received: from westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.11]) by e36.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k3AI8gLN010952 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 14:08:42 -0400 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168]) by westrelay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.8) with ESMTP id k3AI5Cne271214 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 12:05:14 -0600 Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.13.3) with ESMTP id k3AI8dNI027768 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 12:08:39 -0600 Received: from dufur.beaverton.ibm.com (dufur.beaverton.ibm.com [9.47.22.20]) by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k3AI8dNT027367 for ; Mon, 10 Apr 2006 12:08:39 -0600 Subject: follow-fork and detach-on-fork should have one command From: PAUL GILLIAM Reply-To: pgilliam@us.ibm.com To: gdb@sources.redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2006 18:15:00 -0000 Message-Id: <1144688788.10503.8.camel@dufur.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-04/txt/msg00122.txt.bz2 Currently follow-fork is yes or no and detach-on-fork is yes or no. It seems to me that it would be clearer if there was only one, with three states "parent", "child", "both". Feel free to flame me if this has already been talked to death. -=# Paul #=-