From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 108182 invoked by alias); 1 Dec 2015 13:00:36 -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 108170 invoked by uid 89); 1 Dec 2015 13:00:35 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY autolearn=no version=3.3.2 X-HELO: usplmg21.ericsson.net Received: from usplmg21.ericsson.net (HELO usplmg21.ericsson.net) (198.24.6.65) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 01 Dec 2015 13:00:34 +0000 Received: from EUSAAHC005.ericsson.se (Unknown_Domain [147.117.188.87]) by usplmg21.ericsson.net (Symantec Mail Security) with SMTP id 1B.B8.32102.DE99D565; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 14:00:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from [142.133.110.95] (147.117.188.8) by smtp-am.internal.ericsson.com (147.117.188.89) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.248.2; Tue, 1 Dec 2015 08:00:31 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/10] Support software single step and conditional breakpoints on ARM in GDBServer. To: Yao Qi References: <1448287968-12907-1-git-send-email-antoine.tremblay@ericsson.com> <868u5jx06b.fsf@gmail.com> <56585795.7020601@ericsson.com> <868u5ev7gq.fsf@gmail.com> CC: From: Antoine Tremblay Message-ID: <565D99EF.7030103@ericsson.com> Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 13:00:00 -0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <868u5ev7gq.fsf@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-12/txt/msg00005.txt.bz2 On 12/01/2015 04:33 AM, Yao Qi wrote: > Antoine Tremblay writes: > >> So I could push [1-5] if that's ok with you ? >> >> > > Yes, please. > Done. >>> Do you plan to write the GDB counterpart of patch #4? I mean >>> remove thread event breakpoint from GDB for linux. >>> >> >> I do not has there is not need for it in GDB at this point. >> > > I can't parse this sentence. I meant , I did not plan to do it, has I saw no need. > >> Should I ? Seems like we would remove some support for a refactoring >> in that case ? > > GDB and GDBserver should be consistent. We should remove thread event > breakpoint from GDB, but if you don't plan to do that, let us know. > Some one else can do that. I want to avoid duplicated work. > Ok then, I'll add it to my TODO list, after this patch set is in. Regards, Antoine