From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29432 invoked by alias); 9 Jul 2010 03:51:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 29422 invoked by uid 22791); 9 Jul 2010 03:51:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 09 Jul 2010 03:51:21 +0000 Received: (qmail 28615 invoked from network); 9 Jul 2010 03:51:19 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caradoc.them.org) (dan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 9 Jul 2010 03:51:19 -0000 Date: Fri, 09 Jul 2010 03:51:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jonathan Larmour Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Kazu Hirata Subject: Re: Cortex-M CPSR thumb bit fix Message-ID: <20100709035116.GB6577@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jonathan Larmour , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Kazu Hirata References: <4C362657.9040001@eCosCentric.com> <20100708213711.GA6577@caradoc.them.org> <4C369AC0.5030408@eCosCentric.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4C369AC0.5030408@eCosCentric.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: 2010-07/txt/msg00173.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jul 09, 2010 at 04:42:56AM +0100, Jonathan Larmour wrote: > Hmm, that leads to the question: what if one says it's M and the other > says it's something else? Personally I'd always go with what the actual > binary being debugged says. Or at least that should override the XML > definition. Although in that case the only benefit I can think of for the > XML at all is connecting to a target when you don't have a binary to > debug, which is rather a limited benefit. It has to work the other direction, because the XML description typically comes from the target stub / agent. So we consider that the definitive statement on target capabilities. > > Jonathan, Kazu, anyone have a preference on producing a combined patch? > > I haven't mucked around with the XML stuff before, so if you do want a > combined patch, perhaps Kazu could look, particularly as there were also > unresolved comments on his patch, and none of the XML side was posted. > Hopefully with my patch fixed with your comments, then I'm reducing the > effort to combine at least. Thanks, I really appreciate it! Either I'll talk Kazu into looking at it, or find some time to do so myself. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery