From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5261 invoked by alias); 27 Jan 2012 13:04:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 5250 invoked by uid 22791); 27 Jan 2012 13:04:55 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.9 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; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:04:42 +0000 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0RD4K0r019017 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:04:20 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q0RD4Ijl002477; Fri, 27 Jan 2012 08:04:19 -0500 Message-ID: <4F22A0D2.2020106@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:04:00 -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: Joel Brobecker CC: GDB Patches Subject: Re: New board file to run the whole testsuite with a local gdbserver in extended-remote mode References: <4F200EB2.8080909@redhat.com> <20120125182213.GQ31383@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20120125182213.GQ31383@adacore.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/msg00948.txt.bz2 On 01/25/2012 06:22 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> - many tests that do "attach" assume GDB can figure out what executable >> the process is running, and load it automatically >> (target_pid_to_exec_file). This doesn't work in the remote >> targets. > > I think these testcases should be fixed to avoid tis requirement. > We can always have one specific testcase that test that, and skip > the testcase if testing in extended-remote mode. That may well be the right course. I'll try it out. >> I think this should be good enough to check in as is, and improve as >> follow-ups. > > I agree. This is far better than nothing. Thanks. I've checked it in now. -- Pedro Alves