From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8144 invoked by alias); 15 Aug 2006 03:22:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 8135 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Aug 2006 03:22:28 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from romy.inter.net.il (HELO romy.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.66) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Tue, 15 Aug 2006 03:22:24 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-198-6.inter.net.il [80.230.198.6]) by romy.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id FMV57717 (AUTH halo1); Tue, 15 Aug 2006 06:22:19 +0300 (IDT) Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2006 03:22:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Jan Kratochvil , gdb@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20060814213849.GA1433@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:38:49 -0400) Subject: Re: Debugging through exec() (Linux MAY_FOLLOW_EXEC) Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20060721181556.GA9150@lace.redhat.com> <20060721184421.GA22820@nevyn.them.org> <20060722123102.GA1936@lace.redhat.com> <20060724190332.GA13612@nevyn.them.org> <20060729185317.GA16200@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <200607312038.k6VKchKj018729@elgar.sibelius.xs4all.nl> <20060805164144.GA23819@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20060808160113.GC21032@nevyn.them.org> <20060814150628.GA24544@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <20060814213849.GA1433@nevyn.them.org> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-08/txt/msg00125.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2006 17:38:49 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > Cc: Jan Kratochvil , gdb@sourceware.org > > Eli, have you got an opinion on the broader question, by chance? > > This is really an issue of use cases and interface; the technical > changes I'm ok to handle by myself, but there are broader questions > about how this would work (did work, on HP/UX, at some point in the > past) and should work. I was afraid you'll ask ;-) The thing is, I couldn't figure out the broader context of this suggested change, from what was posted. There's not enough info; for example, no source code of the test program which was used to demonstrate the change in behavior. The simple transcript of a debug session was not nearly as self-explanatory as Jan seemed to think. I will be happy to think about this and speak my views, if Jan (or someone else) describes in more detail what is wrong with the current behavior, what is the idea behind his proposal, and how it will change GDB's behavior across `exec'.