From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15856 invoked by alias); 14 Jun 2008 15:15:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 15847 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jun 2008 15:15:49 -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; Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:15:31 +0000 Received: (qmail 1992 invoked from network); 14 Jun 2008 15:15:29 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (vladimir@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 14 Jun 2008 15:15:29 -0000 From: Vladimir Prus To: "Marc Khouzam" Subject: Re: Multiprocess MI extensions Date: Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:15:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA042911CB@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA042911CB@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200806141915.49678.vladimir@codesourcery.com> 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/msg00147.txt.bz2 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