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: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- To: Tom Tromey <tromey 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: Fri, 04 Oct 2013 18:41:13 +0100
- 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> <87ob76w2q1 dot fsf at fleche dot redhat dot com>
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