From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19136 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2013 16:41:36 -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 19109 invoked by uid 89); 1 Jul 2013 16:41:32 -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; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 16:41:29 +0000 Received: from conversion-daemon.a-mtaout22.012.net.il by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0MP900100NK0H100@a-mtaout22.012.net.il> for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 19:41:15 +0300 (IDT) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([87.69.4.28]) by a-mtaout22.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0MP9000SVNOPVCC0@a-mtaout22.012.net.il>; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 19:41:14 +0300 (IDT) Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 16:41:00 -0000 From: Eli Zaretskii Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make file transfer commands work with all (native) targets. In-reply-to: <87ehbiicc7.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> To: Tom Tromey Cc: palves@redhat.com, gdb-patches@sourceware.org Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii Message-id: <83zju6b5cz.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> <83mwqadpf5.fsf@gnu.org> <87ehbiicc7.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00046.txt.bz2 > From: Tom Tromey > Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org > Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 08:28:24 -0600 > > Eli> But putting files on a remote target puts them on the board, no? > Eli> There's no analogous place in native debugging. > > There's the local filesystem. Yes, I know; but "put" and "get" don't make much sense in that case. > >> Would you be OK with, or prefer, adding "target get/put/delete", leaving > >> the "remote" variants in place? > > Eli> I guess so, but then won't you lose backward compatibility? > > He means to leave the "remote" variants in place. OK.