Re: [PATCH] gdb/remote: Don't use vKill if multi-process features are disabled

[Andrew Burgess <andrew dot burgess at embecosm dot com>]

* Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> [2016-03-18 00:12:54 +0000]:

> On 03/17/2016 11:26 PM, Andrew Burgess wrote:
> 
> > The gdb remote protocol documentation is clear that the vKill command
> > should not be used unless the multi-process feature is reported as
> > supported by the remote target.
> 
> Sorry, you were too fast... :-/
> 
> I recalled a reason to keep it.  The original reason for the docs saying
> that is that vKill includes a PID, and without multi-process extensions,
> there's no known non-fake PID to send.  (GDB is presently sending a
> fake PID, as you've probably noticed).
> 
> The other-than-the-pid advantage of vKill over "k", is that "k" has
> no reply, and thus no way to return error, failure to kill, etc.
> 
> Note gdbserver is making use of vKill with multi-process off:
> 
> /* Kill process.  Return 1 if successful, 0 if failure.  */
> static int
> handle_v_kill (char *own_buf)
> {
>   int pid;
>   char *p = &own_buf[6];
>   if (multi_process)
>     pid = strtol (p, NULL, 16);
>   else
>     pid = signal_pid;
>   if (pid != 0 && kill_inferior (pid) == 0)
> 
> So we could just not include the "pid" part if multi-process
> is off, similar to D vs D;pid.  We'd still need the ";", due
> to gdbserver's:
> 
>   if (startswith (own_buf, "vKill;"))
>     {

OK, armed with this new insight I read the docs again, and now I see
that indeed my initial interpretation was not correct.  I see if I can
come up with a wording that feels clearer.

Thank you for setting me straight.

Andrew