From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 30853 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2008 18:30:28 -0000 Received: (qmail 30832 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Oct 2008 18:30:27 -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; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:29:25 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A4CD10813; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:29:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (209.195.188.212.nauticom.net [209.195.188.212]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58F12104AC; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:29:23 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KqB7a-0000re-QC; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:29:22 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:30:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Snyder Cc: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [RFA] Resubmit, reverse debugging [0/5] Message-ID: <20081015182922.GA2913@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" References: <48EC1781.2030005@vmware.com> <48EF93A5.7060808@vmware.com> <20081010175332.GA9028@caradoc.them.org> <48EFA065.5070108@vmware.com> <20081010185808.GA12193@caradoc.them.org> <48EFCFEE.3090007@vmware.com> <20081014122648.GB7471@caradoc.them.org> <48F63377.5020307@vmware.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <48F63377.5020307@vmware.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-10/txt/msg00375.txt.bz2 On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:16:23AM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > We also discussed earlier the idea of a capability check, > or like a qSupported message. Are we going to make that a > requirement before this patch can go in? Or can it be added > as a subsequent, incremental improvement? I don't have an opinion either way. > And are there any more requirements before this patch can go in? If Pedro has no further comments - he had several before - then it should be fine. I don't know what "this patch" covers, though, so it's hard to be sure. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery