Re: multi-process remote protocol extensions

[Pedro Alves <pedro at codesourcery dot com>]

A Tuesday 03 June 2008 16:42:11, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2008 at 04:20:28PM +0100, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > Or:
> >
> > pPID.lLWP.TID
> > oOTHERNAMESPACE.pPID.lLWP.TID
> >
> >  p999.123
> >  p999.l1.123
> >
> > Can only use letters > f then, but that shouldn't be a problem?
>
> I like this one, though I would only define p for the moment.
> A whole process becomes "p99" and the special ".-1" can go away.
>

Ack.  I'll look a bit deeper to see if there's any problem, but
I like it better too.  Great.

> > Not stricly multi-process related, but while we're at it, two
> > nibbles `AA' only is unnecessarilly limiting.  That was
> > the other reason for proposing new status packets.
>
> Allow more than just two nibbles if gdb supports the semicolon?

How can the stub know if GDB supports the semicolon?

> > > Will vKill have any meaning connected to a non-multiprocess stub?  If
> > > so we should clearly document it (e.g. CPU reset, single core reset,
> > > whatever).
> >
> > No reset:
> >
> >  vKill;PID - kills process PID, in an OS sense.  Get rid of
> > process PID.
> >

> Anyway, let's define that vKill is only used for processes today.
> Sound OK?

Yep.  Was just pointing future extension possibilities.  I've no
use for killing threads now.

I'll tinker a bit, readjust the proposal doc and repost.

Thank you.

-- 
Pedro Alves