From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5821 invoked by alias); 29 Apr 2014 13:07:07 -0000 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 Received: (qmail 5809 invoked by uid 89); 29 Apr 2014 13:07:06 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 13:07:05 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s3TD70eE012416 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Tue, 29 Apr 2014 09:07:01 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id s3TD6vje023895; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 09:06:58 -0400 Message-ID: <535FA3F1.8000200@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 13:07:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, Yao Qi Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Fix several "set remote foo-packet on/off" commands. References: <1396307414-2053-1-git-send-email-palves@redhat.com> <533A7E83.4070200@codesourcery.com> <533AABE1.8040101@redhat.com> <533AB01E.4060003@redhat.com> <20140428191608.GA9089@adacore.com> <535EF9DC.4050706@redhat.com> <20140429125351.GB4420@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20140429125351.GB4420@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2014-04/txt/msg00612.txt.bz2 On 04/29/2014 01:53 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: > Hi Pedro, > >> Bummer, sorry for the trouble. > > No problem at all! > >> I think the design is sound. See more info in the patch below. >> >> I'd be fine with either: >> >> - restoring things to how they've "always" been immediately. >> That is, push the patch below. We can then incrementally add the >> missing associated commands, along with corresponding manual and >> possibly testsuite changes/additions, as a non-priority task. >> >> - or, adding all the missing commands now, and add an assertion just >> like in the patch below, but with no exception list, of course. >> (but TBC, I can't offer to work on that myself now.) > > Either approach would be fine with me too. I could even see a two-step > approach where we apply your first patch as a stop-gap, and then > implement everything as a setting (I think having the setting for > every packet could prove useful to interact with difficult remote > stubs). Alright, so I just went ahead and pushed the patch in. Thanks, -- Pedro Alves