On Nov 8, 2011, at 4:48 AM, Ashley Pittman wrote: > I agree that it's not clear this, I don't think this spec is well understood > by anyone, indeed it wasn't originally written with the intention of becoming > a specification at all. I've looked at it a couple of times but never used > this aspect of it, padb (and I believe stat is the same) don't ever launch > jobs under control of the debugger, simply attach to an already existing job > which means I've been able to ignore this part of the spec in padb entirely. >
This was the point I was trying to communicate earlier, without apparent success. I don't think this document can be treated like a spec at this point, nor should we assume that debugger "vendors" already support it. It isn't clear to me that any real consensus understanding of the document even exists at this time. Hence, I really suggest caution about making changes to our interface code without people with access to the various debuggers having a chance to test the idea. It took some degree of pain to get this all working, especially to support those debuggers that dynamically attach, and I for one would rather not go thru it again just because someone decided to interpret the document a particular way. Nathan/Sam: can you please test stat against the trunk and see if it still works? Ashley: ditto with padb, when you have time, would be most appreciated. Ralph
