Re: patch to add QNX NTO i386 support

["Kris Warkentin" <kewarken@qnx.com>]

> > >Bingo.  And it's also the way our ide talks to gdb.  If the exec
filename
> > >is
> > >not set, gdb treats the first argument to run as the path to the file
and
> > >subsequent arguments as regular args.
> >
> > I don't think that change would be accepted into GDB.  It makes `run'
> > just too modal :-/
>
> That was my first reaction too.  But he's not describing a local change
> to GDB - we already do this!  Argh!

Yup.  Serves you right for implementing something that comes in handy and
that people use. ;-)

Seriously though, I'd love to hear proposals for alternative methods of
accomplishing this.  We need to get symbols from a file on the host and then
exec this file at an arbitrary path on the target.  If you think about it,
the current solution encapsulates that perfectly.  Like I said though, I'd
love to hear other ideas.

BTW, Andrew, that HAVE_CONTINUABLE_WATCHPOINT patch....my current QNX patch
which I'm about ready to submit, relies on it.  I know you're busy but can
you tell me if it's at least mostly okay so that I can tell whether or not I
need to change my backend before I submit.

cheers,

Kris