From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7353 invoked by alias); 28 Jun 2013 19:08:05 -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 7335 invoked by uid 89); 28 Jun 2013 19:08:04 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_NO,SPF_SOFTFAIL autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from mtaout22.012.net.il (HELO mtaout22.012.net.il) (80.179.55.172) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 19:08:02 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MP400000AFZEG00@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:07:59 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MP4000KXAHBDP10@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:07:59 +0300 (IDT) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 19:35:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make file transfer commands work with all (native) targets. In-reply-to: <51CDD537.3040300@redhat.com> To: Pedro Alves Cc: tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83mwqadpf5.fsf@gnu.org> References: <1371835506-15691-1-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <1371835506-15691-5-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <51C880C5.6050307@redhat.com> <87bo6rmhin.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <51CDBAF6.4040209@redhat.com> <83txkidtap.fsf@gnu.org> <51CDD537.3040300@redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2013-06/txt/msg00924.txt.bz2 > Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 19:25:59 +0100 > From: Pedro Alves > CC: tromey@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > Yeah, I admit it fits more in the general "as fewer differences > we have between local/remote debugging, the better" theme than > driven by a particular use case. A possible example would be something > like gdb scripts working the same whether connected to a remote > or local target (and unaware of whether the local target is implemented > by local gdbserver or the native built-in target). But putting files on a remote target puts them on the board, no? There's no analogous place in native debugging. > > Without a good use case, having "remote get" serve like a poor man's > > 'cp' is confusing, IMO. > > Would you be OK with, or prefer, adding "target get/put/delete", leaving > the "remote" variants in place? I guess so, but then won't you lose backward compatibility?