From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3275 invoked by alias); 29 Jun 2009 21:50:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 3250 invoked by uid 22791); 29 Jun 2009 21:50:54 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx2.redhat.com (HELO mx2.redhat.com) (66.187.237.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:50:46 +0000 Received: from int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (int-mx2.corp.redhat.com [172.16.27.26]) by mx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n5TLmiAp021610; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:48:44 -0400 Received: from ns3.rdu.redhat.com (ns3.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.255.199]) by int-mx2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n5TLmho0000549; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:48:43 -0400 Received: from opsy.redhat.com (vpn-225-41.phx2.redhat.com [10.3.225.41]) by ns3.rdu.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id n5TLmgEk030422; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 17:48:43 -0400 Received: by opsy.redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 500) id E1D5E3784C5; Mon, 29 Jun 2009 15:48:41 -0600 (MDT) To: Stan Shebs Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Conditional tracepoints References: <4A45AE9B.9020400@codesourcery.com> <4A492AF4.8080109@codesourcery.com> From: Tom Tromey Reply-To: Tom Tromey Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:50:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <4A492AF4.8080109@codesourcery.com> (Stan Shebs's message of "Mon\, 29 Jun 2009 13\:58\:28 -0700") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.2 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii 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 X-SW-Source: 2009-06/txt/msg00854.txt.bz2 >>>>> "Stan" == Stan Shebs writes: Stan> I beg a little indulgence for the moment - the massive target vector Stan> change is coming in about ten patches or so. Since it touches Stan> everything in tracepoint.c, patches from before that change wouldn't Stan> even start to apply, so I'm recapitulating the order in which I wrote Stan> the pieces. In the process, we'll be seeing lots of places where the Stan> tracepoint code knows too much about the remote protocol code. Thanks for the explanation. Pedro also pointed out that tracepoint.c has other direct dependencies on remote_*, which I did not notice. Tom