From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8284 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2008 12:30:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 8274 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Mar 2008 12:30:22 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from main.gmane.org (HELO ciao.gmane.org) (80.91.229.2) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:30:02 +0000 Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1Je8Hs-00080R-7z for gdb@sources.redhat.com; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:29:56 +0000 Received: from 77.246.241.246 ([77.246.241.246]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:29:56 +0000 Received: from ghost by 77.246.241.246 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:29:56 +0000 To: gdb@sources.redhat.com From: Vladimir Prus Subject: Re: MI non-stop mode spec Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2008 17:46:00 -0000 Message-ID: References: <200803190016.02072.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <200803211211.18538.vladimir@codesourcery.com> <20080324214546.GA17281@caradoc.them.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit User-Agent: KNode/0.10.5 X-IsSubscribed: yes 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: 2008-03/txt/msg00218.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 12:11:17PM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote: >> It seems like I have over-engineered this one. The --global option >> was meant so that we can evaluate expressions while the target is >> running, but: >> >> - Generally, we cannot access target memory when all threads are >> running >> - GDB is full with assumptions that we have current thread and current >> frame, so even if target can access memory when all threads is running, >> gdb will still try to grab selected frame, and that will try to grab >> target's register, and that will result in error. >> >> So, I'd like to remove the --global option. This means that the --thread >> option must be used to specify which thread to operate on, and that >> thread must be stopped. > > On targets that can access memory without stopping, I think that's a > valuable feature that we ought to support if we can. Do you think > adding --global is impractical? Maybe we can create a special frame > for this - one which returns an error if you access its registers or > unwind it, just a placeholder frame really. For variable objects, the --global is not a complete solution. Instead, we need some kind of --scope option, and --global in itself is not necessary. - Volodya