From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4367 invoked by alias); 14 Jun 2012 13:54:38 -0000 Received: (qmail 4356 invoked by uid 22791); 14 Jun 2012 13:54:36 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO 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; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:54:17 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AE2EC1C625E; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:54:16 -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 qHequQ5ij09e; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:54:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06C7A1C624A; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:54:15 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1DC9F145616; Thu, 14 Jun 2012 06:54:12 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 13:54:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: Ulrich Weigand , Terry Guo , 'Jonathan Larmour' , Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org, tromey@redhat.com, Richard Earnshaw , Joey Ye Subject: Re: [RFC] Enable GDB handle compressed target.xml returned by GDB stub Message-ID: <20120614135412.GK18729@adacore.com> References: <201206131312.q5DDCUfK028160@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> <4FD9B96C.9020908@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4FD9B96C.9020908@redhat.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: 2012-06/txt/msg00465.txt.bz2 > In that perspective, something like the > 'try qXfer:features:zread:target.xml first, then > qXfer:features:read:target.xml, etc.' alternative sounded attractive. > Or should we not bother? Sounds more attractive indeed. -- Joel