From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19683 invoked by alias); 27 Sep 2002 22:35:46 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 19675 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2002 22:35:45 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO localhost.redhat.com) (216.138.202.10) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 27 Sep 2002 22:35:45 -0000 Received: from redhat.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11F533E77; Fri, 27 Sep 2002 18:35:45 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <3BCDF237.8030609@cygnus.com> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 15:35:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; NetBSD macppc; en-US; rv:0.9.3) Gecko/20010921 X-Accept-Language: en-us MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gdbserver/{,,}.c?; Was: [rfa] gdbserver overhaul References: <20011011161453.A15989@nevyn.them.org> <3BCD045B.4050607@cygnus.com> <20011017002357.A25378@nevyn.them.org> <3BCDDD47.2010805@cygnus.com> <20011017164008.A15898@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2002-09/txt/msg00688.txt.bz2 > Which part are you referring to? The low-linux.c breakup? I can do > that; I can also test it on 80% of the affected targets, and I'd > consider such a patch ``obvious''. Yes the split. Check the guideline for obvious. Your patch will knowingly break something. Hmm, will someone object? > I don't really see the point. It's no more (in fact probably less) > broken than all the other targets, which make the same or worse > assumptions. I'm trying to fix them, not delete them [:)] I'm open to > marking it obsolete, certainly. The MIPS gbserver sim is very broken. GDB has code to carefully map between a simulator and its internal register numbering. It was originally added for the mips-gdb <-> sim interface. >> With respect to sparc, if it really doesn't even build, then well, how >> motivated are you? [:-)] You could fix it, obsolete it or transform it >> (still broken). > > > For Solaris? I'm not motivated in the slightest. In fact, I'm tempted > to mark all non-Linux gdbserver targets as obsolete, and repair them > one at a time as volunteers, or at least testers, pop their heads up. I don't think that is reasonable - it would be setting a precident for me doing things like ignoring / breaking currently working linux targets because (say) most are not multi-arch. enjoy, Andrew