From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22220 invoked by alias); 23 Oct 2008 19:56:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 22208 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Oct 2008 19:56:27 -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; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:55:52 +0000 Received: from mailhost3.vmware.com (mailhost3.vmware.com [10.16.27.45]) by smtp-outbound-2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AB6D35005; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:55:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.20.92.59] (promb-2s-dhcp59.eng.vmware.com [10.20.92.59]) by mailhost3.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 52273C9A25; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:55:49 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4900D59F.4070101@vmware.com> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:56:00 -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> <200810221516.09164.pedro@codesourcery.com> <48FF6B55.4030902@vmware.com> <200810231638.34327.pedro@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <200810231638.34327.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/msg00586.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves wrote: > On Wednesday 22 October 2008 19:05:09, Michael Snyder wrote: >> 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. > > Thanks for testing. > >> 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. > > I can't think of a valid reason why we'd have this > inconsistency: Yeah -- Pedro, I'm going to withdraw the request. I decided to fix the client (breakage was worse than I thought -- it was actually discarding the first byte of data, which only succeeded because it happened to be zero). I don't think it's necessary to uglify remote.c to handle this issue, unles someone else reports a problem with it -- but I leave the decision up to you. ;-) Thanks for your trouble, Michael