From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5565 invoked by alias); 4 Dec 2007 23:05:12 -0000 Received: (qmail 5554 invoked by uid 22791); 4 Dec 2007 23:05:10 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.windriver.com (HELO mail.wrs.com) (147.11.1.11) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:05:01 +0000 Received: from ALA-MAIL03.corp.ad.wrs.com (ala-mail03 [147.11.57.144]) by mail.wrs.com (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id lB4N4cDu012016; Tue, 4 Dec 2007 15:04:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from ala-mail06.corp.ad.wrs.com ([147.11.57.147]) by ALA-MAIL03.corp.ad.wrs.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 15:04:38 -0800 Received: from [147.11.233.91] ([147.11.233.91]) by ala-mail06.corp.ad.wrs.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 4 Dec 2007 15:04:37 -0800 Message-ID: <4755DD05.5030907@windriver.com> Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:05:00 -0000 From: Pawel Piech User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.14pre (X11/20071023) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Jim Blandy CC: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Non-stop multi-threaded debugging References: <474CFA34.1030309@windriver.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2007-12/txt/msg00032.txt.bz2 Hi Jim, I'm glad to hear that you're receptive to feedback in defining the protocol for these new features. I will be glad to write up my proposal as a starting point for discussion. I've never participated on this list before or in any other GDB forum, so forgive my ignorance, but is this mailing list the appropriate place for this discussion? Is there a bugzilla or other bug database where I could post this document? And what is the best format for such design document. Thanks Pawel Jim Blandy wrote: > Folks should treat this post: > > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2007-11/msg00198.html > > as an attempt to mention all the relevant issues --- not as a fully > worked-out design. The plan was to hash out the details through > discussion amongst the front end authors on this list. I don't have > experience writing clients for MI; I've only dealt with implementing > it in GDB, and even then not much. So you people who work on > real-life front ends are in a much better position to see what would > work best. > > So I encourage you, Vlad, Nick, and the rest of the MI fans to hash it > all out and come up with something everyone is satisfied with. We > just need to make sure that the issues the analysis raises all get > addressed (or dismissed). >