Re: multi-process remote protocol extensions

[Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>]

A Thursday 29 May 2008 18:58:05, Michael Snyder wrote:
> Hi Pedro,
>
> I'd like to throw out some thoughts *before* I read your
> somewhat long but apparently well-thought-out proposal.
> I'll be brief.
>
> Forgive me if what I toss out has already been covered.
>
> Have you considered the cross-over between the general
> case of debugging multiple processes, and the more restricted
> case of debugging forks of the same process?  With forks,
> (and excluding exec for the moment), you actually have
> several processes with separate address spaces but one
> common symbol table.
>

Yes, we have.  In fact, we've been using native forks as
prototype for non-stop, multi-process support.  The main
difference to the current fork support, is that we enable
all processes to be running concurrently, while the
current support always leaves the non-current
processes stopped.

> I'm thinking that the support for fork debugging that we
> already have might serve as a stepping-off point for what
> you propose.
>
> Maybe an incremental step would be to extend the fork
> debugging functionality into the remote protocol and
> get it to work with gdbserver?
>

That has been considered.

> I'll just go off and actually read what you wrote now...
> ;-)

Thank you very much!

-- 
Pedro Alves