From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8343 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2010 00:50:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 8335 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Mar 2010 00:50:13 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 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; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:50:09 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 615CF2BAB77; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 20:50:08 -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 DRprEyjCCxgh; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 20:50:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30A542BAB6B; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 20:50:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7AE96F5917; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:50:06 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:50:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Fix watchthreads-reorder.exp fails in linux gdbserver Message-ID: <20100315005006.GF3045@adacore.com> References: <201003141850.49563.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201003141850.49563.pedro@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) 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: 2010-03/txt/msg00518.txt.bz2 > I've applied the patch below, to address in linux gdbserver the problem > watchthreads-reorder.exp uncovers, similarly to how it was fixed > in linux-nat.c. This is a bit off topic, and even maybe a dream-that-will-never-come-true, but I've been wondering about sharing the wait loop between GDB and gdbserver. Sounds like a big job at the very least (in order to extract the code from GDB for the platform currently supported), but do you think that it's actually doable / worth the effort? It's just that we're (actually, mostly you!) are very regularly fixing the same problem twice; once in GDB, and then once in gdbserver. Given the complexity of this code on some platforms, it's a real shame. -- Joel