From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7382 invoked by alias); 4 Aug 2002 19:01:21 -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 7337 invoked from network); 4 Aug 2002 19:01:20 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 4 Aug 2002 19:01:20 -0000 Received: from dsl254-114-118.nyc1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([216.254.114.118] helo=nevyn.them.org ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17bQcz-0000jA-00; Sun, 04 Aug 2002 14:01:22 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17bQd9-0001b3-00; Sun, 04 Aug 2002 15:01:31 -0400 Date: Sun, 04 Aug 2002 12:01:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Remote protocol extension - detaching Message-ID: <20020804190131.GA5937@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20020731183702.GA12324@nevyn.them.org> <3D4D7068.1060900@ges.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D4D7068.1060900@ges.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00018.txt.bz2 On Sun, Aug 04, 2002 at 02:20:24PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >Right now, the standard behavior for a stub on detach is to wait for the > >client to reconnect. It would be convenient to have the normal local > >execution behavior available, also: that is, on detach, resume the > >application. This could be done with or without leaving the stub running. > > > >I'd like to commandeer the 'K' packet for this; 'd' and 'D' are already > >taken. Anyone have a better suggestion? > > ``detach'' could mean too many things here. > > - There is GDB detaches from the remote target -- it shuts down the tcp > connection. > > - There is the remote debug agent detaching from the process being debugged. > > I'm also wondering how this relates to GDB's target stack and command set. Yeah. I'm not terribly fond of the overloading of "detach". Worse, the only thing I could think of was either "set remote detach on" or "detach -detach", and those are pretty silly. Better suggestions anyone? Please? After thinking about William Gatliff's comment, I think 'K' should serve as an alternate to the 'D' GDB already sends, indicating that the connection will be closed in a moment and the child should be resumed (when that happens?). > Andrew > > (k makes me think of kill, but d is taken ...) Yeah. I used K because it (could) kill the stub - it would cause gdbserver to exit, probably, because gdbserver isn't set up to process events with no GDB. Although I could make it do so pretty easily, I suppose, and that might be more useful... hack, hack... This would also be useful for kgdb; right now to get this effect you have to disable all breakpoints, continue, and kill GDB. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer