From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5099 invoked by alias); 31 Oct 2008 19:13:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 5085 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Oct 2008 19:13:38 -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; Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:13:03 +0000 Received: (qmail 15115 invoked from network); 31 Oct 2008 19:13:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO macbook-2.local) (stan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 31 Oct 2008 19:13:01 -0000 Message-ID: <490B58B7.9030306@codesourcery.com> Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 19:57:00 -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> <48FCA958.3060805@codesourcery.com> <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA06688E9F@ecamlmw720.eamcs.ericsson.se> In-Reply-To: <6D19CA8D71C89C43A057926FE0D4ADAA06688E9F@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/msg00143.txt.bz2 Marc Khouzam wrote: >> From: Stan Shebs [mailto:stan@codesourcery.com] >> Sent: Monday, October 20, 2008 11:53 AM >> >> I have a set of patches applied to FSF GDB, and it generally >> works, but there are, uh, some regressions. :-) >> > > Do you think this work will make it to HEAD before March next year? > I hope so! I'm down to about three main breakages to fix, and we have a design decision to make, namely whether to have a single target stack shared by multiple inferiors, or make multiple instances of the target stack. >>> 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. :-) >> > > So does Vladimir and/or yourself have plans for MI to be enhanced > correspondingly > by the time this feature makes it into HEAD? > Not me, at the moment anyway. It's a little too big to sneak in amongst my for-pay projects. :-) Stan