From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 11967 invoked by alias); 12 Nov 2008 21:30:35 -0000 Received: (qmail 11876 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Nov 2008 21:30:33 -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, 12 Nov 2008 21:29:56 +0000 Received: (qmail 27132 invoked from network); 12 Nov 2008 21:29:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO orlando.local) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 12 Nov 2008 21:29:54 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: Michael Snyder Subject: Re: multi-proc: info processes? Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2008 21:30:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.10 Cc: Stan Shebs , "gdb@sourceware.org" References: <491B3695.5090300@vmware.com> <491B3A6E.5010208@codesourcery.com> <491B48F7.5030407@vmware.com> In-Reply-To: <491B48F7.5030407@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200811122129.59949.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: 2008-11/txt/msg00095.txt.bz2 On Wednesday 12 November 2008 21:21:59, Michael Snyder wrote: > Stan Shebs wrote: > > Michael Snyder wrote: > >> Hey Pedro, > >> > >> For your multi-process work, are you planning anything > >> analogous to the "info threads" command, eg. "info processes"? > > Look at "info inferiors". It's just the processes (or whatever) that are > > currently being controlled by GDB. > >> What might that look like, in your model? Would it list, > >> say, just the processes that gdb is attached to? Or would > >> you want something analogous to "ps", that would list all > >> of the processes that are available to be attached? > > That would be somewhat ambitious, especially for a remote target - I > > think you'd need a new packet just to return the list of processes... > > Sure -- by analogy with qfThreadInfo/qsThreadInfo, it could > be implemented as an iterator. Yeah, there are many ways to implement that. Both Vladimir and I ended up doing that independently but similarly, by querying a new enum target_object and having the stub formatting the list of processes as xml. Vladimir has the ball on merging those currently --- let's see what comes out, might even pop out something totally different. :-) > > I'm not sure how desireable it is, but it could save you > from having to go over to the remote target and typing "ps"... > > By the way, what about remote attach? Is that in the plan? The extended remote protocol has had that for long now, in the form of vAttach;pid. What do you mean exactly? -- Pedro Alves