This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Archer 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: ptrace improvement: PTRACE_O_INHERIT

On 02/15, Roland McGrath wrote:
> Quite simply, the notion of considering a thread in
> isolation from its process just does not make any sense to me at all from
> the perspective of a user or a debugger or anything in userland,

And this is what I can't understand. Despite the fact I have read
your email many times.

> This is an example of how the clean, new, non-ptrace, high-level interface
> that I always imagined would be far more natural.  In that notion, the
> debugger would define a "tracing group" (always needed a better term for
> that) that is its handle on referring to what it's doing in the interface.

Yes, agreed.

The sane interface should use something, say, fd which (at least) allows
to detach all tracees or set some options for all of them. And of course
attach-the-whole-process makes a lot of sense. But at the same time
attach-this-particular-thread looks very natural to me.

> But, all that
> gets us away into the land of "good ideas" rather than "ptrace improvement".



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