This is the mail archive of the gdb-patches@sourceware.org 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]

Re: RFA [PATCH v4] Implement 'catch syscall' for gdbserver (was Re: RFA [PATCH v3] Implement 'catch syscall' for gdbserver)


On 10/03/2013 08:53 PM, Tom Tromey wrote:
>>>>>> "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.

Yeah.

> I tend to think it ought to be, for consistency and simplicity; followed
> up by using it{etc}sets for filtering out uninteresting events.

Yeah.  That was part of the reason I just asked it is was intended,
instead of requesting to make it per-process.

> 
> 
> 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.

-- 
Pedro Alves


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]