From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22255 invoked by alias); 18 Aug 2009 16:42:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 22247 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Aug 2009 16:42:10 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 16:42:02 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n7IGbw7x003238; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:37:58 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n7IGbvgE032665; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:37:58 -0400 Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n7IGbu5Q013993; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:37:56 -0400 Received: from host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n7IGbtFR017354; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:37:55 +0200 Received: (from jkratoch@localhost) by host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net (8.14.3/8.14.3/Submit) id n7IGbscH017351; Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:37:54 +0200 Date: Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:10:00 -0000 From: Jan Kratochvil To: Doug Evans Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Pedro Alves Subject: Re: [patch 0/4] Fix hw watchpoints Message-ID: <20090818163754.GA16719@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> References: <20090817194531.GA10694@host0.dyn.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05) 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: 2009-08/txt/msg00284.txt.bz2 On Tue, 18 Aug 2009 18:24:00 +0200, Doug Evans wrote: > Have you looked at whether gdbserver has similar issues? No. http://sourceware.org/ml/archer/2009-q2/msg00084.html On Sun, 10 May 2009 17:42:48 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote: # On Sunday 10 May 2009 15:55:49, Jan Kratochvil wrote: # > May I ask why do you put effort both on linux-nat.c and gdbserver? Isn't it # > cheaper to unify the codebase and start (transparently) using gdbserver even # > for local operations? # # Probably, I think we're slowly going in that direction. Making the # debug interface control parts of gdbserver into a library and reuse # it from gdb for native debugging (code sharing, that is) as been # suggested many times. Expecting currently I should copy the changes also to gdb/gdbserver/ . Is it OK to first get them approved for linux-nat.c & co. ? Thanks, Jan