From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27928 invoked by alias); 18 Mar 2009 03:15:29 -0000 Received: (qmail 27916 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Mar 2009 03:15:27 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:15:23 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D54372BAB3E; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:15:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from rock.gnat.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rock.gnat.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id s5KJHKgBILzG; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:15:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A48092BAB16; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:15:21 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 5AAF8F5CFA; Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:15:16 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 03:24:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Paul Pluzhnikov , tromey@redhat.com Subject: Re: [patch] Fix a crash when displaying variables from shared ?library. Message-ID: <20090318031516.GL31979@adacore.com> References: <20090205030257.8A6073A6B7A@localhost> <20090305200415.GC3744@adacore.com> <8ac60eac0903051546r1eaffc89tf1f35b21e6dc1b40@mail.gmail.com> <200903180249.10903.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200903180249.10903.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) 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: 2009-03/txt/msg00357.txt.bz2 > The problem is that gdb_start_cmd is a nop for remote targets: [...] > What do you think? Should we skip this test for remote > targets, or perhaps we do things differently here? If I understand the original issue correctly, we need to restart the execution of our program in order to demonstrate the issue. Except with the extended-remote protocol, we can't do that when using the gdbserver, right? In other words, the "run" command with target remote doesn't restart the program like in the native case. So I'd say we kill the test for remote targets. -- Joel