From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 59758 invoked by alias); 26 Mar 2017 14:11:48 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 59746 invoked by uid 89); 26 Mar 2017 14:11:48 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=communicate, H*F:D*pl, metal X-HELO: smtpo27.poczta.onet.pl Received: from smtpo27.poczta.onet.pl (HELO smtpo27.poczta.onet.pl) (213.180.142.158) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 14:11:46 +0000 Received: from [192.168.2.253] (83-238-226-97.adsl.inetia.pl [83.238.226.97]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: freddie_chopin@op.pl) by smtp.poczta.onet.pl (Onet) with ESMTPSA id 3vrfGg0rTkzlkB8J; Sun, 26 Mar 2017 16:11:38 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <1490537497.1290.9.camel@op.pl> Subject: Re: [OpenOCD-devel] Python API for supplying thread information? From: Freddie Chopin To: Duane Ellis , Yao Qi Cc: gdb@sourceware.org, Phil Muldoon , openocd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Sun, 26 Mar 2017 14:11:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: References: <1490175792.1242.7.camel@op.pl> <4b310e40-3f39-feed-6134-d2cfe68c4423@redhat.com> <1490199596.1410.3.camel@op.pl> <86mvccuszh.fsf@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2017-03/txt/msg00061.txt.bz2 Hi Duane! On Thu, 2017-03-23 at 07:33 -0700, Duane Ellis wrote: > Bottom line: I believe the current gdb server solution is not well > suited for some complex bare metal things - and that is what this > thread is about. > > What I proposed a while back was this: > [...] Wouldn't that actually result in OpenOCD's functionality being merged into GDB? It's an interesting idea, but I think it would be the hardest one to actually implement, given all the issues with JTAG interfaces and their configurations... Unless I misread your proposal? Maybe you suggest that GDB should not interact with OpenOCD as with a "GDB server" but communicate using some special interface designed just for that situation? Regards, FCh