This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: Process exit in multi-process, and gdb's selected thread.
- From: Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>
- To: tromey at redhat dot com
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Marc Khouzam <marc dot khouzam at ericsson dot com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:44:42 +0000
- Subject: Re: Process exit in multi-process, and gdb's selected thread.
- References: <200902170058.33653.pedro@codesourcery.com> <m37i3flice.fsf@fleche.redhat.com>
On Tuesday 24 February 2009 19:56:17, Tom Tromey wrote:
> >>>>> "Pedro" == Pedro Alves <pedro@codesourcery.com> writes:
>
> I meant to reply to this earlier...
>
Makes two of us now. :-)
> Pedro> What would you think if GDB could get into this state,
> Pedro> after a process exit? :
> Pedro> (gdb) info threads
> Pedro> 2 Thread 31176.31176 0x00007f0706154796 in ?? ()
> [...]
>
> I think it is a reasonable outcome given the model. If users find it
> too confusing, we can try to add some extra output somewhere -- for
> instance, when gdb says "The program is not being run.", it could
> check for multiple inferiors and print something about how to switch
> to another inferior.
>
> I tend to doubt that we will need to do this, though, because I think
> this is the most logical way for multi-inferior debugging to work.
>
> Pedro> In the past, I had solved this by spreading around some hacks
> Pedro> that tried to detect the current inferior exiting, and switching
> Pedro> to any other random live thread, but, that turned out to be: first,
> Pedro> surprising in non-stop mode, in the case mentioned above; and
> Pedro> second, surprisingly difficult to get right. I think this usually
> Pedro> means that GDB shouldn't try to be smart (well, or I shouldn't).
>
> I agree.
>
> Pedro> What do you think of all this, am I making sense?
>
> Yeah, I think your choices here make sense, particularly not having
> gdb switch contexts behind the user's back, and that what you wrote up
> is the logical outcome of this decision.
Great then. Since there were no objections to this, and Marc
has been using this patch against his multi-process aware system
for a while now without problems, I checked it in.
--
Pedro Alves