This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com mailing list for the GDB project.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |
Other format: | [Raw text] |
I'm told HP once did a study to determine the debug requirements of a typical user. Turns out a typical debug session looks something like:On Fri, Aug 09, 2002 at 01:48:25PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:>Hold on a second. Gdbserver is in wide use; that may not have been >true a couple of years ago, but the reason I've invested so much time >in maintaining it is a continually growing customer demand for it. >People use this, and they are already used to its behavior.
[Be careful to separate the interests of the fee paying customer from the interests of GDB and the wider GDB community. Fee paying customers have an unfortunate habit of being very short sighted :-( :-)]
I get more non-customer feedback on gdbserver than customer feedback, actually. Poor choice of words.
I'm a user, and I'd prefer to be able to type: (gdb) target remote |ssh machine gdbagent (gdb) file foo (gdb) run Program exited <doh!> (gdb) break main (gdb) run ... (gdb) detach (gdb) monitor ps (gdb) attach ..... instead of:Some day :) Those are nice ideas.
It's closer then you might thing. All you need is: - attach packet - detach packet with a correct definition - auto-negotiate of extended-remote
More background:I think the command sequence would be: target remote attach <remote-pid> target child -- implicit remote/pid detach attach <local-pid> (Red Herring -- ``target sim'' is equally confused.)
The difficulty is what to call "disconnect from the agent". I don't
really like the ambiguity of the target stack here... I suppose adding
a "target none" will suffice, but right now the behavior when unpushing
a running target is to ask the user if they want to kill it. That's
not going to work if we use this as the method to detach and leave the
agent running :) Having "target none" detach and "target child" ask
you if you want to kill doesn't really work either.
What do you think of letting the target control what happens when
another target is selected? Remote targets could choose to detach. That's a little better.
Hmmm!Or, hey, here's a better idea. A "disconnect" command. Then "target" can retain its current semantics (kill) and the user will have an explicit way to disconnect if they want.
Index Nav: | [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index] | |
---|---|---|
Message Nav: | [Date Prev] [Date Next] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] |