From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5912 invoked by alias); 3 Jun 2008 15:55:06 -0000 Received: (qmail 5904 invoked by uid 22791); 3 Jun 2008 15:55:05 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:54:47 +0000 Received: (qmail 13795 invoked from network); 3 Jun 2008 15:54:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 3 Jun 2008 15:54:45 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: multi-process remote protocol extensions Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2008 15:55:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz References: <200805272233.24078.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200806031620.28942.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20080603154211.GA18375@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20080603154211.GA18375@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200806031654.47008.pedro@codesourcery.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-06/txt/msg00008.txt.bz2 A Tuesday 03 June 2008 16:42:11, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 04:20:28PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote: > > Or: > > > > pPID.lLWP.TID > > oOTHERNAMESPACE.pPID.lLWP.TID > > > > p999.123 > > p999.l1.123 > > > > Can only use letters > f then, but that shouldn't be a problem? > > I like this one, though I would only define p for the moment. > A whole process becomes "p99" and the special ".-1" can go away. > Ack. I'll look a bit deeper to see if there's any problem, but I like it better too. Great. > > Not stricly multi-process related, but while we're at it, two > > nibbles `AA' only is unnecessarilly limiting. That was > > the other reason for proposing new status packets. > > Allow more than just two nibbles if gdb supports the semicolon? How can the stub know if GDB supports the semicolon? > > > Will vKill have any meaning connected to a non-multiprocess stub? If > > > so we should clearly document it (e.g. CPU reset, single core reset, > > > whatever). > > > > No reset: > > > > vKill;PID - kills process PID, in an OS sense. Get rid of > > process PID. > > > Anyway, let's define that vKill is only used for processes today. > Sound OK? Yep. Was just pointing future extension possibilities. I've no use for killing threads now. I'll tinker a bit, readjust the proposal doc and repost. Thank you. -- Pedro Alves