From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31107 invoked by alias); 16 Jan 2012 15:38:41 -0000 Received: (qmail 31021 invoked by uid 22791); 16 Jan 2012 15:38:40 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 15:38:27 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0GFcPlk011609 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:38:25 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id q0GFcNon013943; Mon, 16 Jan 2012 10:38:24 -0500 Message-ID: <4F14446F.3060704@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2012 16:39:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ulrich Weigand CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [rfc v2][0/6] Remote /proc file access References: <201201131813.q0DID9r1031719@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <201201131813.q0DID9r1031719@d06av02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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: 2012-01/txt/msg00547.txt.bz2 On 01/13/2012 06:13 PM, Ulrich Weigand wrote: > Any further comments comments on this approach are appreciated! I've been through the series, and it looks good to me. Thanks a lot! If this doesn't work out in the end, I'll certainly help sort it out. I've given a couple comments in reply to the patches directly. I'm leaving some general-ish comments here: - We could consider making "info proc" work with the default run target if the current target can't handle it, so that "info proc PID" works even when not debugging a process yet, like today. - It could be argued that the pid parsing should be kept at the target/gdbarch callbacks side (pass down `char *args'), so that we didn't have: + if (args && *args == '/') + tid = strtoul (args + 1, &args, 10); + else + tid = 0; in infcmd.c:info_proc_cmd_1 which is only needed by procfs.c. But please, don't consider these comments blocking in any way. Thanks again. -- Pedro Alves