Re: Multiprocess MI extensions

[Vladimir Prus <vladimir@codesourcery.com>]

On Friday 13 June 2008 21:34:23 Marc Khouzam wrote:
> > >> -> How to report process exit? Should we overload 
> > =thread-exited, introduce
> > >> =thread-group-exited, or what?
> > >>
> > >> -> Should we auto-attach to newly forked processes? Should we have
> > >>  =new-thread-group notificatin, if so?
> > >>   
> > > Auto attach should probably be an option, but if there is an auto
> > > attach, a notification should definitely be generated.
> > 
> > OK.
> > 
> > >> -> Should we have just =created and =exited notifications, 
> > used for threads
> > >> and processes and what not?
> > >>   
> > > I don't think it makes much difference whether the same 
> > event is used or
> > > not as long as a parent-id field is included in the event.
> > 
> > Just to make sure we're on the same page -- if we use one 
> > notification for everything,
> > it will either have a 'thread' field -- when a thread is 
> > created/exited, or 'thread-group'
> > field, when  process is created/exited. Is that OK?
> 
> 
> Currently, when the inferior exits, there is an event that looks like:
> *stopped,reason="exited-normally"
> or some other variant.
> 
> I gather this is not a considered option for multi-process?
> It probably would have helped with backwards compatibility.

I don't know, honestly. Is extending *stopped with thread-group field really
much better for backward compatibility that new notification?

> What notification would be used for single-process, after the
> multi-process changes?  Still *stopped... or will it be made in-line
> with multi-process?

I think we have to keep *stopped for single-process. Changing that will
break everything.

- Volodya