From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8699 invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2008 15:53:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 8690 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Oct 2008 15:53:56 -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; Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:53:04 +0000 Received: (qmail 23391 invoked from network); 20 Oct 2008 15:53:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO macbook-2.local) (stan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 20 Oct 2008 15:53:02 -0000 Message-ID: <48FCA958.3060805@codesourcery.com> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:53:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marc Khouzam CC: gdb@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Multiprocess GDB, formal spec References: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA0653C051@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA0653C051@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2008-10/txt/msg00075.txt.bz2 Marc Khouzam wrote: >> On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:16:02 Stan Shebs wrote: >> The following writeup is a more formal specification for multiprocess >> > First let me say that I think the proposal (snipped out) is very > interesting and I'm looking forward > to the GDB version that will implement it :-) > I have a set of patches applied to FSF GDB, and it generally works, but there are, uh, some regressions. :-) I wasn't going to make a branch for them pre-submission, but could be persuaded if everyone promises not to laugh at the code. > Now, as a frontend developer, am I very interested with the MI support > for such features. > I was just wondering how come there were not more MI details included, > considering there > was already a post for Multiprocess MI extensions: > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb/2008-06/msg00080.html > This goes back to the multi-exec / multi-process distinction. Those MI extensions are for multiple-process single-executable debugging. Multiple executables introduces a whole new class of confusions, especially on the symbol side. > Furthermore, I find myself in a strange situation where I have been > working with a preliminary, > non-public version of GDB which has some support for multi-process > through MI. This support, will > eventually (I believe) makes its way to mainline GDB. But until then, I > am not sure where > I can discuss/comment on my experience using the 'proposed' MI > extensions. Because of > the intended use of MI, it greatly benefits from respecting > backwards-compatibility, which > implies that it would be beneficial to update/modify the multi-process > parts of MI, before > they are released officially. > This is the perfect place to discuss. It certainly wouldn't be the first time we've talked about features of GDB versions that we don't yet have in hand! > As the multi-process work seems to be progressing quite well, I was > wondering if it was time to > start looking at MI again? > Yes, now would be a good time. I had to neglect MI due to time constraints on this project, but after people try their hand at juggling a half-dozen programs through the command line, I think an MI alternative is going to get considerable interest all of a sudden. :-) Stan