This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Multiprocess MI extensions
On Friday 13 June 2008 21:34:23 Marc Khouzam wrote:
> > >> -> How to report process exit? Should we overload
> > =thread-exited, introduce
> > >> =thread-group-exited, or what?
> > >>
> > >> -> Should we auto-attach to newly forked processes? Should we have
> > >> =new-thread-group notificatin, if so?
> > >>
> > > Auto attach should probably be an option, but if there is an auto
> > > attach, a notification should definitely be generated.
> >
> > OK.
> >
> > >> -> Should we have just =created and =exited notifications,
> > used for threads
> > >> and processes and what not?
> > >>
> > > I don't think it makes much difference whether the same
> > event is used or
> > > not as long as a parent-id field is included in the event.
> >
> > Just to make sure we're on the same page -- if we use one
> > notification for everything,
> > it will either have a 'thread' field -- when a thread is
> > created/exited, or 'thread-group'
> > field, when process is created/exited. Is that OK?
>
>
> Currently, when the inferior exits, there is an event that looks like:
> *stopped,reason="exited-normally"
> or some other variant.
>
> I gather this is not a considered option for multi-process?
> It probably would have helped with backwards compatibility.
I don't know, honestly. Is extending *stopped with thread-group field really
much better for backward compatibility that new notification?
> What notification would be used for single-process, after the
> multi-process changes? Still *stopped... or will it be made in-line
> with multi-process?
I think we have to keep *stopped for single-process. Changing that will
break everything.
- Volodya