From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 17146 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2010 04:45:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 17138 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Mar 2010 04:45:19 -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 04:45:16 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C178C2BAB6B; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:45:14 -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 uLep4YqSuCSf; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:45:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8FFB22BAAFC; Mon, 15 Mar 2010 00:45:14 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 921F3F5917; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:45:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 04:45:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: Fix watchthreads-reorder.exp fails in linux gdbserver Message-ID: <20100315044512.GI3045@adacore.com> References: <201003141850.49563.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20100315005006.GF3045@adacore.com> <201003150122.00715.pedro@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <201003150122.00715.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/msg00529.txt.bz2 > I believe that at some point this will end up happening, and it > will be GDBserver's side that will prevail. It used to be that > native gdb was much more featureful than gdbserver, but the balance > is now starting to tip to the other direction. That, plus the fact that I think that the gdbserver side might be less entangled - so the code might be easier to pull out and isolate? In any case, thanks for sharing your thoughts... -- Joel, gdbserver novice ;-)