Mirror of the gdb mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com>
To: gdb@sourceware.org
Cc: Stan Shebs <stan@codesourcery.com>,
	 Mark Kettenis <mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl>
Subject: Re: Towards multiprocess GDB
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2008 03:53:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <200807190013.24604.pedro@codesourcery.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <488118EE.90508@codesourcery.com>

A Friday 18 July 2008 23:27:58, Stan Shebs wrote:

> I'm not sure it's going to be that big of a change actually. Once
> behavior has been directed to the right objects internally, they will do
> what they're doing now. Most symbol handling is objfile-relative for
> instance, adding a new set of objfiles for a different exec isn't going
> to affect that code.

You seem to be thinking of the symbol handling code only.

The thing I see requiring architecting, is the target stack.

Currently, it's only layed out for the single executable + single
process case.

For starters, I'll try to give a simple example.

Imagine you're debugging simultaneously these cases below:

1) Linux native non-threaded app.  The current target is a squashed
view of:

 linux-nat    process_stratum
 exec         file_stratum

2) Linux native multi-threaded app, loads libthread_db for the thread
support.  The current target is a squashed view of:

 linux-thread-db    thread_stratum
 linux-nat          process_stratum
 exec               file_stratum

3) Linux native threaded app, but loads another thread support lib.

 linux-other-thread-db    thread_stratum
 linux-nat                process_stratum
 exec                     file_stratum

4) Linux native non-threaded app, doing reverse debugging.

 record                   record_stratum
 linux-nat                process_stratum
 exec                     file_stratum

 (There are OSs where this is more common.)

It seems to me that each process should have its own target stack
instance.

We could split target_ops in two and share the ops part
between instances, but still the target_ops rw data needs to be
per-process.

Note that I'm not even considering multi-process,multi-exec,single
remote target connection, where things get even dirtier, or even
native process + remote process debugging simultaneously.

There are other issues around the target stack that need
resolution, but this issue above seems crucial to have in
mind first.

-- 
Pedro Alves


  reply	other threads:[~2008-07-18 23:13 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-07-18 20:50 Stan Shebs
2008-07-18 21:21 ` Paul Koning
2008-07-18 21:41   ` Stan Shebs
2008-07-21  0:34   ` Michael Snyder
2008-07-18 22:13 ` Mark Kettenis
2008-07-18 22:20   ` David Daney
2008-07-18 22:28   ` Thiago Jung Bauermann
2008-07-18 23:09   ` Stan Shebs
2008-07-19  3:53     ` Pedro Alves [this message]
2008-07-21 17:39       ` Stan Shebs
2008-07-21  1:53   ` Michael Snyder
2008-07-21 16:08     ` Russell Shaw
2008-07-21 17:57   ` Joel Brobecker
2008-07-18 23:13 ` Tom Tromey
2008-07-21 17:11   ` Stan Shebs
2008-07-21  0:30 ` Michael Snyder
2008-07-21 18:21   ` Paul Pluzhnikov
2008-07-21 18:32   ` Stan Shebs
2008-07-21 16:38 ` Michael Eager
2008-07-21 21:54   ` Stan Shebs
2008-07-31 22:04 ` Ian Lance Taylor

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=200807190013.24604.pedro@codesourcery.com \
    --to=pedro@codesourcery.com \
    --cc=gdb@sourceware.org \
    --cc=mark.kettenis@xs4all.nl \
    --cc=stan@codesourcery.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox