From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 16693 invoked by alias); 12 Aug 2002 16:31:36 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 16674 invoked from network); 12 Aug 2002 16:31:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO crack.them.org) (65.125.64.184) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 12 Aug 2002 16:31:35 -0000 Received: from dsl093-061-169.pit1.dsl.speakeasy.net ([66.93.61.169] helo=nevyn.them.org ident=mail) by crack.them.org with asmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17eI6S-0007Ld-00; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 11:31:36 -0500 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17eI6k-0000WZ-00; Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:31:54 -0400 Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 09:31:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Kevin Buettner , jorma.laaksonen@hut.fi, gdb-gnats@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: gdb/633: fully qualified pathnames in solib_map_sections() and remote debugging Message-ID: <20020812163154.GB1469@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , Kevin Buettner , jorma.laaksonen@hut.fi, gdb-gnats@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com References: <20020806100634.11483.qmail@sources.redhat.com> <20020806132047.GA16450@nevyn.them.org> <1020809231206.ZM11775@localhost.localdomain> <20020812032527.GA3838@nevyn.them.org> <3D57C611.4010403@ges.redhat.com> <20020812143803.GA25086@nevyn.them.org> <3D57CF1A.4070405@ges.redhat.com> <1020812154849.ZM31876@localhost.localdomain> <3D57E028.8030809@ges.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3D57E028.8030809@ges.redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-08/txt/msg00103.txt.bz2 On Mon, Aug 12, 2002 at 12:19:52PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > >At the moment, I like the first approach better because it's simpler. > >I'd prefer that we wait on the more complicated approach until a need > >is demonstrated for the additional complexity. > > > > > >>Adding a local/remote test is going to be easier. > > > > > >Do we already have such a test? > > Well, looking at some finally dead hacks, .... > > int > remote_Z_write_wp_packet_supported_p (void) > { > struct remote_state *rs = get_remote_state (); > /* Don't even think about it if the remote target isn't selected. */ > /* FIXME: cagney/2002-05-19: This shouldn't be necessary - the > WATCHPOINT methods should be in the target vector. Ulgh! */ > if (target_shortname == NULL > || strcmp (target_shortname, "remote") != 0) > return 0; > > notice that the problem it was trying to avoid was with ``target sim''. > So in the above the question is no longer local/remote but local VS > remote VS sim VS .... Note that the above hack doesn't even work. We're going to default to extended-remote for gdbserver eventually. Could do it with strstr, I suppose... -- Daniel Jacobowitz MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer