From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18617 invoked by alias); 22 Sep 2010 23:18:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact archer-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Sender: Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Received: (qmail 18605 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Sep 2010 23:18:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Date: Wed, 22 Sep 2010 23:18:00 -0000 From: Oleg Nesterov To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" Cc: archer@sourceware.org, utrace-devel@redhat.com Subject: Re: gdbstub initial code, v11 Message-ID: <20100922231451.GA11198@redhat.com> References: <20100922022226.GA27400@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-SW-Source: 2010-q3/txt/msg00214.txt.bz2 On 09/22, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > > oleg wrote: > > > [...] Honestly, I don't really know how do the "right thing" here. > > Anyway, most probably this code will be changed. Like ptrace, ugdb > > uses ->report_syscall_exit() to synthesize a trap. Unlike ptrace, > > ugdb_report_signal() doesn't send SIGTRAP to itself but reports > > SIGTRAP using siginfo_t we have. In any case, whatever we do, > > multiple tracers can confuse each other. > > (It seems to me that a pure gdb report, without a synthetic > self-injected SIGTRAP, should be fine.) What do you mean? > > Next: fully implement g/G/p/P, currently I am a bit confused... > > But what about features? [...] > > You could dig out the old "fishing plan". One demonstrated > improvement was from simulating (software) watchpoints within the > gdb stub, instead of having gdb fall back to issing countless > single-steps with memory-fetch inquiries in between. When I do 'watch', gdb sends '$Z2'. I am a bit confused, iirc it was decided I shouldn't play with Z packets now. But I won't argue. Oleg.