This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFA [PATCH v4] Implement 'catch syscall' for gdbserver (was Re: RFA [PATCH v3] Implement 'catch syscall' for gdbserver)
- From: Tom Tromey <tromey at redhat dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Philippe Waroquiers <philippe dot waroquiers at skynet dot be>, Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj at redhat dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2013 13:53:26 -0600
- Subject: Re: RFA [PATCH v4] Implement 'catch syscall' for gdbserver (was Re: RFA [PATCH v3] Implement 'catch syscall' for gdbserver)
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1379796907 dot 5980 dot 20 dot camel at soleil> <m3bo3ec7cp dot fsf at redhat dot com> <1380467062 dot 3567 dot 52 dot camel at soleil> <524DBA28 dot 3070706 at redhat dot com>
>>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
>> +QCatchSyscalls:1 [;SYSNO]...
>> +QCatchSyscalls:0
>> + Enable ("QCatchSyscalls:1") or disable ("QCatchSyscalls:0")
>> + catching syscalls from the inferior process.
Pedro> So, "catch syscall" is per-inferior/process on the GDB side, but
Pedro> this always sets the catchpoints on all processes. Was that
Pedro> intended?
I wonder whether it is the right thing on the gdb side.
Right now we have the rule that linespecs for breakpoints apply to all
inferiors; but this rule isn't followed for catchpoints.
I tend to think it ought to be, for consistency and simplicity; followed
up by using it{etc}sets for filtering out uninteresting events.
I don't want to derail this patch though.
And arguably it is ok for gdb to present one thing to the user but more
useful for gdbserver to present a different view to gdb.
Tom