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: [RFC] Don't create inferior in tfile target.


On 05/15/2013 11:33 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
I have a very vague recollection that it was I who suggested this
in internal reviews at the time, but GDB was a bit different then,
and I don't recall exactly why.  It's possible you might find that
in CS's archives.

I went through the CS's archives (in a range of 3 years), but didn't find anything related to it.

I was going to say this would break "detach" with tfile
(detach_command checks for null_ptid).  Except "detach" with tfile
doesn't work already -- with target core,

Yes, this patch changes the behaviour of "detach" on tfile, without this patch, there is no output after command 'detach'.

(gdb) detach

However, with this patch, GDB prints something,

(gdb) detach
The program is not being run.

"detach" unloads the core, and I assumed tfile behaved the same.
I think it'd be reasonable if it did.

'detach' uploads the core, but I don't think 'detach' should behave the same in tfile target. The GDB manual says about 'detach' command:

"When you have finished debugging the attached process, you can use the detach command to release it from gdb control. Detaching the process continues its execution. After the detach command, that process and gdb become completely independent once more, and you are ready to attach another process or start one with run."

User can use 'detach' command to release the process from gdb control. Command 'detach' applies to core file, because the pid of the process which core file is dumped is stored in core file, so GDB can 'emulate' the pid of the core file. However, the tfile and ctf doesn't save the pid in it (unnecessary to do so on the other hand), so command 'detach' doesn't apply to tfile. The output "The program is not being run." of
command 'detach' on tfile is reasonable to me.

You didn't mention it explicitly, so I'll ask.
There are probably more commands that treat null_ptid magically.
Could you audit kill, detach, continue, step, etc.
to see if they'll do something reasonable?  Or rather,

The commands 'step', 'continue' behave the same, while command 'kill' behaves differently.

Without this patch,

(gdb) kill
Kill the program being debugged? (y or n) y
You can't do that without a process to debug.

With this patch,

(gdb) kill
The program is not being run.

According to the GDB manual, 'kill' command is "Kill the child process in which your program is running under gdb", we don't have a child process at all on tfile, IMO, the later is more reasonable.

The output of 'info threads' on tfile changes also,

without this patch:
(gdb) info threads
  Id   Target Id         Frame
* 1    process 1         No registers.

with this patch:
(gdb) info threads
No threads.

I feel the latter is more reasonable.

Without this patch command 'thread name' print nothing, but with this patch, command 'thread name' prints "No thread selected".

could you audit/grep the tree for null_ptid uses?  E.g.,
I see that dcache.c uses null_ptid as magic number, but
probably that doesn't matter for tfile.  There don't seem
to be that many checks for null_ptid, and many are in run
control code, which obviously doesn't apply, so an audit
seems doable.

I examined the null_ptid usages, looks the usages in target.c are not affected by this change. I also tried commands 'info frame' and 'maintenance print registers', the output is the same.

In short, this patch changes the output of some commands, but the changes are reasonable to me. WDYT?

--
Yao (éå)


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