From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21725 invoked by alias); 1 Feb 2002 17:43:17 -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 21685 invoked from network); 1 Feb 2002 17:43:14 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO TheWorld.com) (199.172.62.103) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 1 Feb 2002 17:43:14 -0000 Received: from shell.TheWorld.com (root@shell01.TheWorld.com [199.172.62.241]) by TheWorld.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA04281; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:43:12 -0500 Received: from localhost (qqi@localhost) by shell.TheWorld.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id MAA10841319; Fri, 1 Feb 2002 12:43:12 -0500 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: shell01.TheWorld.com: qqi owned process doing -bs Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 09:43:00 -0000 From: Quality Quorum To: Dan Kegel cc: "Korbel, Michal" , Subject: Re: Thread Support for remote debugging In-Reply-To: <3C5AC35B.5A9708DF@kegel.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00038.txt.bz2 On Fri, 1 Feb 2002, Dan Kegel wrote: > Cool. Can you post a patch, or an archive of your sources? > I'd like to link to it from http://www.kegel.com/linux/gdbserver.html > - Dan > > > "Korbel, Michal" wrote: > > > > I was use source for gdbserver based on GDB 5.0, > > but I was add protocol support based on Quality Quorum source code > > (multithread and zbreak packet support) > > and move part of multithread support from GDB 5.0 core into gdbserver code. > > There are some bugs, but looks and work quite good. > > The most importent is: " we can start debug after all thread are created", > > there are problems with adding or deleting thread in internal thread list. Great to hear this, however, I would like to warn everybody (as an original developer) that there are some protocol issues to be fixed still, before serous advance could be achieved. There is also an issue of clearly formulating goals - in my view remote debugging has to provide the same functionality as local one. BTW, is it possible to set up mailing list to discuss this topic specifically ? Thanks, Aleksey