From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17107 invoked by alias); 6 May 2014 20:16:48 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 17092 invoked by uid 89); 6 May 2014 20:16:47 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FROM_12LTRDOM autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 06 May 2014 20:16:46 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-exc-10.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.58]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1Whln8-0004Tx-Dy from donb@codesourcery.com for gdb@sourceware.org; Tue, 06 May 2014 13:16:42 -0700 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([172.30.2.26]) by SVR-ORW-EXC-10.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Tue, 6 May 2014 13:16:41 -0700 Message-ID: <53694328.30907@codesourcery.com> Date: Tue, 06 May 2014 20:16:00 -0000 From: "Breazeal, Don" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "gdb@sourceware.org" Subject: Why aren't inferiors deleted on exit or detach Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-05/txt/msg00007.txt.bz2 Hi I've been struggling with the issue of when to delete inferiors, as I'm working on remote follow-fork. It looks like inferiors are kept around after a process exits or is detached or killed so that the user can switch to the inferior and run it again. The argument vector for the inferior is kept intact on exit/detach/etc. Is my understanding here correct? With "follow-fork parent" and "detach-on-fork on", GDB does *not* keep an inferior around for the detached child. My guess is that this is because the child inferior would just be a duplicate of the parent inferior. Correct? Thanks --Don