From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8213 invoked by alias); 1 Dec 2008 22:10:42 -0000 Received: (qmail 8205 invoked by uid 22791); 1 Dec 2008 22:10:42 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (HELO smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com) (65.115.85.69) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:09:54 +0000 Received: from mailhost2.vmware.com (mailhost2.vmware.com [10.16.67.167]) by smtp-outbound-1.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7231313411; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:09:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.20.92.151] (promb-2s-dhcp151.eng.vmware.com [10.20.92.151]) by mailhost2.vmware.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 551888E5D1; Mon, 1 Dec 2008 14:09:50 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <49346036.6060204@vmware.com> Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2008 22:10:00 -0000 From: Michael Snyder User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (X11/20080411) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Pedro Alves , dgraham@nortel.com Subject: Re: RFC: Do not try g-packet-guess algorithm on exited targets References: <20081123211454.GA17391@caradoc.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20081123211454.GA17391@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: 2008-12/txt/msg00017.txt.bz2 Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > We got a bug report indicating that gdbserver --multi didn't work on > MIPS. We'd connect to the target, try to read the XML description - > gdbserver reports an error because there's no process yet - and then > try to guess the description from the g packet length instead. Of > course we can't do that; there's no process yet. > > This patch fixes the problem. We try qXfer on connection, then try > 'g' only if (A) there was no XML description, and (B) there is a > running process, and (C) we are not in non-stop mode; assume that > non-stop targets can provide a description explicitly. Just curious -- how do you determine whether or not there is a running process?