From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 23446 invoked by alias); 1 Jul 2013 14:28:30 -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 23435 invoked by uid 89); 1 Jul 2013 14:28:29 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.1 Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Mon, 01 Jul 2013 14:28:29 +0000 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r61ESQgW004529 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 1 Jul 2013 10:28:26 -0400 Received: from barimba (ovpn-113-102.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.113.102]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r61ESOes009203 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Mon, 1 Jul 2013 10:28:25 -0400 From: Tom Tromey To: Eli Zaretskii Cc: Pedro Alves , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make file transfer commands work with all (native) targets. 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> Date: Mon, 01 Jul 2013 14:28:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <83mwqadpf5.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Fri, 28 Jun 2013 22:07:58 +0300") Message-ID: <87ehbiicc7.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-SW-Source: 2013-07/txt/msg00034.txt.bz2 >> 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). 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. You can run gdbserver locally and still use these commands. >> > 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? Eli> I guess so, but then won't you lose backward compatibility? He means to leave the "remote" variants in place. Tom