From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31416 invoked by alias); 8 Oct 2009 19:42:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 31406 invoked by uid 22791); 8 Oct 2009 19:42:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:42:17 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 623A710EB5; Thu, 8 Oct 2009 19:43:40 +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 509001086E; Thu, 8 Oct 2009 19:43:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MvysQ-00078n-MO; Thu, 08 Oct 2009 15:42:14 -0400 Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 19:42:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Paul Pluzhnikov Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, dje@google.com Subject: Re: [patch] Allow gdbserver to dynamically lookup libthread_db.so.1 Message-ID: <20091008194214.GA27413@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Paul Pluzhnikov , Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, dje@google.com References: <20090902163344.833F476568@localhost> <200910070044.24367.pedro@codesourcery.com> <8ac60eac0910061726n18f8fa9cnea4ddd25d55fe315@mail.gmail.com> <200910081906.38504.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20091008190516.GA23318@caradoc.them.org> <8ac60eac0910081220h47064bq1977dad0f8194075@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8ac60eac0910081220h47064bq1977dad0f8194075@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2009-10/txt/msg00183.txt.bz2 On Thu, Oct 08, 2009 at 12:20:53PM -0700, Paul Pluzhnikov wrote: > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 12:05 PM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > How horrid would it be to support both modes of operation? > > I think this can be done fairly easily via configure option. > > I would prefer to do it as a follow-up patch though. > Would that be ok? Oh, absolutely. This isn't a common use case, just one I've found handy. As usual, I appreciate how helpful you are! -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery