From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 27257 invoked by alias); 31 Aug 2008 14:36:47 -0000 Received: (qmail 27249 invoked by uid 22791); 31 Aug 2008 14:36:46 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (65.74.133.4) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:35:56 +0000 Received: (qmail 7285 invoked from network); 31 Aug 2008 14:35:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO macbook-2.local) (stan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 31 Aug 2008 14:35:54 -0000 Message-ID: <48BAAC44.4000002@codesourcery.com> Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2008 14:36:00 -0000 From: Stan Shebs User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (Macintosh/20080707) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Bart Veer CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: add file I/O support when debugging an embedded target via jtag References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2008-08/txt/msg00670.txt.bz2 Bart Veer wrote: > Following on from > http://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2008-08/msg00315.html, I have not > heard anything about the code in the last two weeks. Do you know if > anybody is looking at it? Also, if there is a likelihood that the > patch will be accepted then I should probably get started on the > assignment paperwork. > To be honest, I looked at it but didn't understand why all this stuff seemed necessary. If this is not for the remote protocol, then what is it for? A target supported by GDB, or something else? The addition of another stratum raises alarm bells with me, because the stratums are not as orthogonal as they should be, and I wouldn't be surprised if other configurations were broken by this. Also, how will everybody regression-test this (read: "make check") to know that other changes haven't broken this code? Stan