From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 14891 invoked by alias); 26 Feb 2013 12:01:44 -0000 Received: (qmail 14882 invoked by uid 22791); 26 Feb 2013 12:01:43 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_SPAMHAUS_DROP,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS 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; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:01:34 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r1QC1VMp020468 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 26 Feb 2013 07:01:31 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id r1QC1ULE016964; Tue, 26 Feb 2013 07:01:30 -0500 Message-ID: <512CA419.7020806@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 12:01:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130110 Thunderbird/17.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Aleksandar Ristovski CC: "gdb-patches@sourceware.org" , Jan Kratochvil Subject: Re: [patch] gdbserver build-id in qxfer_libraries reply References: <51278984.3070208@qnx.com> <5127BB31.9040500@qnx.com> In-Reply-To: <5127BB31.9040500@qnx.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: 2013-02/txt/msg00650.txt.bz2 Hi Aleksandar, Thanks for the patch. On 02/22/2013 06:38 PM, Aleksandar Ristovski wrote: >> >> Majority of the patch is refactoring to reuse code. I'm reading the patch, but one immediate question I have is where did hex_encode/hex_decode and friends got refactored from? It seems we end up with multiple functions to do the same in both gdb and gdbserver, given the existence of bin2hex etc in gdb and unhexify/hexify in gdbserver? > The real change is >> in gdbserver/linux-low.c. -- Pedro Alves