From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25841 invoked by alias); 8 Sep 2004 15:14:02 -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 25833 invoked from network); 8 Sep 2004 15:14:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO smtp.hispeed.ch) (62.2.95.247) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 8 Sep 2004 15:14:00 -0000 Received: from indel.ch (217-162-27-127.dclient.hispeed.ch [217.162.27.127]) by smtp.hispeed.ch (8.12.6/8.12.6/tornado-1.0) with SMTP id i88FDxsw031230 for ; Wed, 8 Sep 2004 17:13:59 +0200 Received: from fabi.indel.ch [192.168.1.19] by indel.ch [127.0.0.1] with SMTP (MDaemon.v2.7.SP5.R) for ; Wed, 08 Sep 2004 17:12:35 +0200 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.1.20040908170159.01d11e18@NT_SERVER> X-Sender: cenedese@NT_SERVER (Unverified) Date: Wed, 08 Sep 2004 15:14:00 -0000 To: gdb@sources.redhat.com From: Fabian Cenedese Subject: Re: Remote set thread breakpoint In-Reply-To: <413F155B.6070003@gnu.org> References: <5.2.0.9.1.20040908160444.01d4c920@NT_SERVER> <5.2.0.9.1.20040908160444.01d4c920@NT_SERVER> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: gdb@sources.redhat.com X-Return-Path: cenedese@indel.ch X-SW-Source: 2004-09/txt/msg00068.txt.bz2 >>I'm thinking about extending the remote protocol for thread breakpoints. >>Ztype,addr,length,threadid >>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... I don't know what the general plans for gdb are. I just thought it would go along with the other Z commands. Of course vBP is another alternative. But if all new commands are vSomething... Well, first I need to have some code, renaming later (before committing :) shouldn't be that hard. >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. There is already the command "break foo thread id", so some support is already there. But I guess the more difficult point is if gdb uses these commands internally e.g. for debugging. I'll see if I can do something. Or I end up by hitting the big delete key... :) Thanks bye Fabi