From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25675 invoked by alias); 22 Oct 2008 18:10:30 -0000 Received: (qmail 25666 invoked by uid 22791); 22 Oct 2008 18:10:29 -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, 22 Oct 2008 18:09:53 +0000 Received: from mailhost2.vmware.com (mailhost2.vmware.com [10.16.67.167]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B24D225002; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:09:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.92.59] (promb-2s-dhcp59.eng.vmware.com [10.20.92.59]) by mailhost2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B3F98E5F8; Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:09:51 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <48FF6B55.4030902@vmware.com> Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 18:10:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Pedro Alves CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" Subject: Re: [RFA] Restore leading zeros in remote_thread_alive References: <48FE7B9B.3040905@vmware.com> <200810221418.22409.pedro@codesourcery.com> <200810221516.09164.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200810221516.09164.pedro@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; 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/msg00547.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves wrote: > Could you try this out please? It works here against gdbserver > single|multi-process, and sends a `T000000tid' (tid alive) packet when > multi-process isn't in effect. Thanks for working up the patch -- it works for my target. However, I must say that I'm not crazy about the idea that we decide whether or not to send leading zeroes based on whether the target is multi-process. Seems orthogonal and ad hoc. If your targets will choke on the leading zeros, then you have just as strong a case as I do. ;-) However, if you're just doing it to save a few bytes of data over the serial line, I question whether it's worth it. Michael