From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 20146 invoked by alias); 1 Dec 2015 09:33:56 -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 19814 invoked by uid 89); 1 Dec 2015 09:33:53 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-pa0-f41.google.com Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com (HELO mail-pa0-f41.google.com) (209.85.220.41) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Tue, 01 Dec 2015 09:33:51 +0000 Received: by pacdm15 with SMTP id dm15so216709894pac.3 for ; Tue, 01 Dec 2015 01:33:48 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.66.149.229 with SMTP id ud5mr80913479pab.83.1448962428095; Tue, 01 Dec 2015 01:33:48 -0800 (PST) Received: from E107787-LIN (gcc1-power7.osuosl.org. [140.211.15.137]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id om8sm36632753pac.17.2015.12.01.01.33.45 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 01 Dec 2015 01:33:47 -0800 (PST) From: Yao Qi To: Antoine Tremblay Cc: Yao Qi , Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/10] Support software single step and conditional breakpoints on ARM in GDBServer. In-Reply-To: <56585795.7020601@ericsson.com> (Antoine Tremblay's message of "Fri, 27 Nov 2015 08:16:05 -0500") References: <1448287968-12907-1-git-send-email-antoine.tremblay@ericsson.com> <868u5jx06b.fsf@gmail.com> <56585795.7020601@ericsson.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) Date: Tue, 01 Dec 2015 09:33:00 -0000 Message-ID: <868u5ev7gq.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-12/txt/msg00000.txt.bz2 Antoine Tremblay writes: > So I could push [1-5] if that's ok with you ? > > Yes, please. >> 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. > 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. --=20 Yao (=E9=BD=90=E5=B0=A7)