From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8744 invoked by alias); 8 Sep 2004 14:21:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 8708 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2004 14:21:26 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 8 Sep 2004 14:21:26 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i88ELPS2020493 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 10:21:26 -0400 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (porkchop.devel.redhat.com [172.16.58.2]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i88ELJ306500; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 10:21:25 -0400 Received: from gnu.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7C40A28D2; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 10:21:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <413F155B.6070003@gnu.org> Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 14:21:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-GB; rv:1.4.1) Gecko/20040831 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Fabian Cenedese Cc: gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Remote set thread breakpoint References: <5.2.0.9.1.20040908160444.01d4c920@NT_SERVER> In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.1.20040908160444.01d4c920@NT_SERVER> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00067.txt.bz2 > Hi > > I'm thinking about extending the remote protocol for thread breakpoints. > The easiest solution would be to just add another data field to the Z > commands, like: > > Ztype,addr,length,threadid > > If threadid is given, gdbserver can use it. If it's -1 or not present (as in > the present implementation) it's a global breakpoint. > > But if this would cause incompatibilities with existing parsers it may > be better to create a new command, even if it's just Z5 and the rest > is the same. > > What would be better? Or is something like that already in the pipe? Yes [zZ]5 would be safer. Would also be a good oportunity to formalize how to probe support for this packet - Z5? Given things like vCont and its vCont? query, a [better?] alternative might be be vBP... Just note that there is a small challenge here. GDB internally assumes that breakpoints are global (it's a limitation / bug) - you'll need to also investigate what needs to be changed closer to GDB's core. Andrew