From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LOF3E-0004AU-OD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:33:40 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LOF3D-00047q-Bu
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:33:40 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=43514 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LOF3D-00047e-8U
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:33:39 -0500
Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:12757)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>)
	id 1LOF3C-0002w9-U2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:33:39 -0500
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4])
	by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1LOF3A-0003KX-G0
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:33:36 -0500
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [RESEND][PATCH] gdbstub: Add vCont support
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:33:31 +0000
References: <496DFA33.2020606@siemens.com>
	<200901160015.44729.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<20090117100350.GB20389@shareable.org>
In-Reply-To: <20090117100350.GB20389@shareable.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200901171733.32763.paul@codesourcery.com>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>

> So the distinction which really matters is, surely, with which model
> does GDB behave most usefully with multiple CPUs having their own
> MMUs?  Does GDB _assume_ all threads have exactly the same address
> space, or does GDB allow for threads which have some thread-local
> mappings, and therefore always use the correct thread when examining
> memory etc.?

GDB assumes all threads share a common address space.

Paul