From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24011 invoked by alias); 27 Feb 2003 20:02:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 24004 invoked from network); 27 Feb 2003 20:02:12 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by 172.16.49.205 with SMTP; 27 Feb 2003 20:02:12 -0000 Received: from nevyn.them.org ([66.93.61.169] ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 18oW7b-0004Ll-00; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 16:03:19 -0600 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 18oUEI-0002wj-00; Thu, 27 Feb 2003 15:02:06 -0500 Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 20:02:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Kris Warkentin Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: patch to add QNX NTO i386 support Message-ID: <20030227200206.GA11306@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Kris Warkentin , Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <020c01c2d3ae$c7cb39b0$0202040a@catdog> <20030213222922.GA15783@nevyn.them.org> <000901c2d3ba$cb19aaf0$2a00a8c0@dash> <20030214000311.GA18154@nevyn.them.org> <003d01c2d3bd$b136bf30$2a00a8c0@dash> <20030214001316.GA18590@nevyn.them.org> <017c01c2d3c1$6196b210$2a00a8c0@dash> <3E4EBCF0.8070003@redhat.com> <20030217154403.GA16683@nevyn.them.org> <059b01c2d69e$0a5fe9f0$0202040a@catdog> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <059b01c2d69e$0a5fe9f0$0202040a@catdog> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2003-02/txt/msg00776.txt.bz2 On Mon, Feb 17, 2003 at 11:02:58AM -0500, Kris Warkentin wrote: > > > >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. "set remote exec-path"? Except that's not quite accurate, because the normal remote protocol doesn't support it. Maybe "set nto exec-path", since it'd only be used by remote-nto. -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer