From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21393 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2014 12:53:54 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 21380 invoked by uid 89); 29 Apr 2014 12:53:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: rock.gnat.com Received: from rock.gnat.com (HELO rock.gnat.com) (205.232.38.15) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 12:53:53 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by filtered-rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45D65116124; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 08:53:51 -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 DPGfX2dbpMZi; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 08:53:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: from joel.gnat.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by rock.gnat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 243BD116111; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 08:53:51 -0400 (EDT) Received: by joel.gnat.com (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 511CAE03FD; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 08:53:51 -0400 (EDT) Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 12:53:00 -0000 From: Joel Brobecker To: Pedro Alves Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Yao Qi Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Fix several "set remote foo-packet on/off" commands. Message-ID: <20140429125351.GB4420@adacore.com> References: <1396307414-2053-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <533A7E83.4070200@codesourcery.com> <533AABE1.8040101@redhat.com> <533AB01E.4060003@redhat.com> <20140428191608.GA9089@adacore.com> <535EF9DC.4050706@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <535EF9DC.4050706@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-SW-Source: 2014-04/txt/msg00611.txt.bz2 Hi Pedro, > Bummer, sorry for the trouble. No problem at all! > I think the design is sound. See more info in the patch below. > > I'd be fine with either: > > - restoring things to how they've "always" been immediately. > That is, push the patch below. We can then incrementally add the > missing associated commands, along with corresponding manual and > possibly testsuite changes/additions, as a non-priority task. > > - or, adding all the missing commands now, and add an assertion just > like in the patch below, but with no exception list, of course. > (but TBC, I can't offer to work on that myself now.) Either approach would be fine with me too. I could even see a two-step approach where we apply your first patch as a stop-gap, and then implement everything as a setting (I think having the setting for every packet could prove useful to interact with difficult remote stubs). Thanks! -- Joel