From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 466 invoked by alias); 25 Jun 2009 19:36:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 433 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jun 2009 19:36:37 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from smtp-out.google.com (HELO smtp-out.google.com) (216.239.45.13) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:36:30 +0000 Received: from spaceape11.eur.corp.google.com (spaceape11.eur.corp.google.com [172.28.16.145]) by smtp-out.google.com with ESMTP id n5PJaQan002599 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:36:27 -0700 Received: from yxe31 (yxe31.prod.google.com [10.190.2.31]) by spaceape11.eur.corp.google.com with ESMTP id n5PJaAsp015259 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:36:24 -0700 Received: by yxe31 with SMTP id 31so2620874yxe.32 for ; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:36:24 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.90.99.3 with SMTP id w3mr2363189agb.62.1245958583490; Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:36:23 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <20090625183333.GA19506@caradoc.them.org> References: <20090624190346.GA17908@caradoc.them.org> <20090625183333.GA19506@caradoc.them.org> Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 19:36:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: New breakpoint_re_set call vs remote targets From: Doug Evans To: gdb@sourceware.org, Pedro Alves , Pierre Muller Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-System-Of-Record: true X-IsSubscribed: yes 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 X-SW-Source: 2009-06/txt/msg00243.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > On Thu, Jun 25, 2009 at 09:52:36AM -0700, Doug Evans wrote: >> From my perhaps ancient point of view, gdb is for debugging two kinds >> of programs: hosted and freestanding (to borrow jargon from C - though >> non-bare-metal and bare-metal may be more accurate. 1/2 :-)), and I >> wonder if they're being inadvertently fused. > > I've been wondering about this too... I fear that if we introduce any > switch between these two modes, we'll find it's not granular enough. To me what one got depended on the target and how one used it. I never found the need for an explicit switch.