From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32392 invoked by alias); 15 Mar 2011 17:43:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 32384 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Mar 2011 17:43:07 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 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; Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:43:01 +0000 Received: (qmail 23375 invoked from network); 15 Mar 2011 17:43:00 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO scottsdale.localnet) (pedro@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 15 Mar 2011 17:43:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch] [gdbserver] Fix multi-GB error log files Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2011 17:48:00 -0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.5 (Linux/2.6.35-27-generic; KDE/4.6.1; x86_64; ; ) Cc: Jan Kratochvil , Daniel Jacobowitz References: <20110306115536.GA31532@host1.jankratochvil.net> In-Reply-To: <20110306115536.GA31532@host1.jankratochvil.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201103151742.56925.pedro@codesourcery.com> 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: 2011-03/txt/msg00799.txt.bz2 On Sunday 06 March 2011 11:55:36, Jan Kratochvil wrote: > This change introduces the listening port to remain open during the default > gdbserver run for users (when "--once" is not used). This is a change where > the user can mistakenly connect to the "dead" but still listening port. It seems that this change stands on its own independently from the --once stuff. I'm worried about whether this breaks use cases. E.g., as is, you can spawn several instances of gdbserver + connect, while only needing to open one port in your firewall. Or perhaps IDEs are relying on that when spawning the second (and nth) connections to the same board (while leaving the previous sessions still running). Daniel, do you have an opinion? > But I find the assumption that the port will be available when the user will > want to reconnect as a worse one than the dead-but-listening port. I see your point. Not sure if there's a single right answer. -- Pedro Alves