From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 18534 invoked by alias); 31 Aug 2010 15:58:25 -0000 Received: (qmail 18521 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Aug 2010 15:58:24 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.1 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; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:58:17 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E530A2BAB79; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:58:15 -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 URnvKIovQZoM; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:58:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A2A8F2BAB77; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:58:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id C3422F599F; Tue, 31 Aug 2010 17:58:07 +0200 (CEST) Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2010 15:58:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Doug Evans Cc: Mark Kettenis , jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, pedro@codesourcery.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [0/9]#2 Fix lost siginfo_t Message-ID: <20100831155807.GJ2986@adacore.com> References: <20100830070955.GA6831@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <201008302050.02945.pedro@codesourcery.com> <20100830201110.GA17151@host1.dyn.jankratochvil.net> <201008302047.o7UKlPYR005898@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: 2010-08/txt/msg00549.txt.bz2 > > I fear that it's time for another rewrite of linux-nat.c. > > For reference sake, > I think such a rewrite wouldn't go far enough. FWIW, If that helps simplifying the code, I am all for it too. But I also agree with your assessement. The "target-specific" IWBN if the gdbserver -low files and the gdb -nat files were merged, one day. -- Joel