From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 29472 invoked by alias); 10 Feb 2012 15:01:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 29453 invoked by uid 22791); 10 Feb 2012 15:01:47 -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, 10 Feb 2012 15:01:31 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1AF1SsN007608 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:01:28 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id q1AF1Q6Z024885; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:01:27 -0500 Message-ID: <4F353146.3020504@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:01:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:10.0) Gecko/20120131 Thunderbird/10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Yao Qi CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [patch 5/8] Doc for agent References: <4F1D55D7.7030506@codesourcery.com> <4F1D678B.2040705@codesourcery.com> <4F34248A.8070706@redhat.com> <4F351BC1.9080601@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <4F351BC1.9080601@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 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: 2012-02/txt/msg00200.txt.bz2 On 02/10/2012 01:29 PM, Yao Qi wrote: > On 02/10/2012 03:54 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> Some things, like the new target-side breakpoint conditions, and tracepoints, >> use agent expressions as well, without having an agent loaded in the inferior. >> Do you think it still makes sense to move the whole section considering that? > > No, I don't think it makes sense anymore, because agent expression is being > used in non-agent cases. My patch should be updated as well. We > can add a new chapter for "Agent", which is about how to control > agent by commands, and leave original appendix GDB Agent Expression > Mechanism there, with some minor changes, where needed. WDYT? Sounds good. Re. "control agent by commands". So you're planning on making the agent speak some other command set other than RSP? I'd think that making it talk exactly RSP would be the best, since #1, you need some kind of command set anyway; #2, the agent should be able to support debugging (stepping, breakpoints, etc.) without gdbserver involved, and for that you'd want to support the RSP anyway so that GDB can connect. Unless you're coming up with some new rpc/marshaling protocol that's clearly superior to RSP? -- Pedro Alves