From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2142 invoked by alias); 18 Jun 2008 07:41:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 2134 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Jun 2008 07:41:57 -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; Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:41:39 +0000 Received: (qmail 2900 invoked from network); 18 Jun 2008 07:41:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost) (vladimir@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 18 Jun 2008 07:41:38 -0000 From: Vladimir Prus To: "Marc Khouzam" Subject: Re: Multiprocess MI extensions Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2008 07:41:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.9 Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA042911E6@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA042911E6@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: <200806181141.39885.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/msg00175.txt.bz2 On Wednesday 18 June 2008 00:19:06 Marc Khouzam wrote: > As for the output of -list-thread-groups > > > ^done,result={threads=[],groups=[]} > > where each thread group is like this: > > {id="xxx",type="process",pid="yyy",num_children="1"} > > I'm not clear on the "threads" part of the output. > Will that part only be filled if we issue > -list-thread-groups GROUP > where GROUP is a process and therefore only has threads as children? > > If that is the case, then "threads" and "groups" cannot both > have content at the same time, right? I don't know, and the spec intentionally does not disallow that. For now, we have only one level of thread groups -- which are processes. So, in practice, you'll either get 'threads' or 'groups' field. But I don't know how one might want to group threads in future. > Further, I guess this would mean we can use -list-thread-groups > all the time, and no longer use -thread-list-ids? Yes, this is the intention. In order to support older GDB, you might want to have fallback code that uses -thread-list-ids. - Volodya