From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14301 invoked by alias); 14 Mar 2008 18:06:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 14130 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Mar 2008 18:06:33 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:06:13 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6333A983B5; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:06:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45809983AA; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:06:12 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1JaEIF-0008KT-K5; Fri, 14 Mar 2008 14:06:11 -0400 Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2008 18:06:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Vladimir Prus Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Remove ignoring leading exec events code. Message-ID: <20080314180611.GB31663@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Vladimir Prus , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <200803141212.31845.vladimir@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200803141212.31845.vladimir@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-03/txt/msg00186.txt.bz2 On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 12:12:31PM +0300, Vladimir Prus wrote: > > GDB has some code to handle a case where target reports more > that one exec event when execing. However, it turns out that > all target say that exactly one event is reported, and > therefore that code is of no use. The comments for that code > is dated 2002-12-05 and mentions HP-UX, which I presume had this > bug fixed. Even if some new target appears with the same bug, > as the comment say, it's better to handle this in target_wait, > not in the generic infrun code. > > OK? OK. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery