From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7756 invoked by alias); 15 Oct 2008 18:42:51 -0000 Received: (qmail 7745 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Oct 2008 18:42:50 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com) (65.115.85.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:42:15 +0000 Received: from mailhost5.vmware.com (mailhost5.vmware.com [10.16.68.131]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4538C52002; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:42:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.92.59] (promb-2s-dhcp59.eng.vmware.com [10.20.92.59]) by mailhost5.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3AB7DDC067; Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:42:12 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <48F638B6.4000403@vmware.com> Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:42:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Michael Snyder , "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Pedro Alves Subject: Re: [RFA] Resubmit, reverse debugging [0/5] References: <48EC1781.2030005@vmware.com> <48EF93A5.7060808@vmware.com> <20081010175332.GA9028@caradoc.them.org> <48EFA065.5070108@vmware.com> <20081010185808.GA12193@caradoc.them.org> <48EFCFEE.3090007@vmware.com> <20081014122648.GB7471@caradoc.them.org> <48F63377.5020307@vmware.com> <20081015182922.GA2913@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20081015182922.GA2913@caradoc.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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: 2008-10/txt/msg00377.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 11:16:23AM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: >> We also discussed earlier the idea of a capability check, >> or like a qSupported message. Are we going to make that a >> requirement before this patch can go in? Or can it be added >> as a subsequent, incremental improvement? > > I don't have an opinion either way. > >> And are there any more requirements before this patch can go in? > > If Pedro has no further comments - he had several before - then it > should be fine. I don't know what "this patch" covers, though, so > it's hard to be sure. Pedro? Did I address your concerns, and/or are the remaining ones addressable incrementally?