> Can you explain your -f changes? > > I see you're alternating QCatchSyscalls:1 or QCatchSyscalls:2 -- what > are these values? Has this protocol change gone into gdb upstream, or > just your own gdb branch? Yes, it was just a local change. QCatchSyscalls:1 was without -f being specified and QCatchSyscalls:2 was when -f was specified. On the gdbserver side it is translated to: <-2,SYSCALL1,...,SYSCALLN> follow syscalls in list OR <-2,-1) follow all syscalls OR (-1) all syscalls
> have thought we just needed to add fork-events+ and vfork-events+ to our > qSupported string. Hmm yea, so add fork-events+ and vfork-events+ and just make following clones the default? a list of syscalls would be $QCatchSyscalls:1;0;1;2;3;4;5;6;7;8;9; all syscalls would be $QCatchSyscalls:1 That seems reasonable to me. > PS- on git procedure ... I'd suggest you either rebase or > reset and cherry-pick new changes, so we can keep it easier to see what > the gdbserver changes are. Sure thing ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Developer Access Program for Intel Xeon Phi Processors Access to Intel Xeon Phi processor-based developer platforms. With one year of Intel Parallel Studio XE. Training and support from Colfax. Order your platform today. http://sdm.link/xeonphi _______________________________________________ Strace-devel mailing list Strace-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/strace-devel
