From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from simark.ca (simark.ca [158.69.221.121]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 60CF1385840C for ; Tue, 7 Feb 2023 13:49:48 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 60CF1385840C Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=simark.ca Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=simark.ca Received: from [10.0.0.11] (unknown [217.28.27.60]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by simark.ca (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EE92D1E0D3; Tue, 7 Feb 2023 08:49:47 -0500 (EST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=simark.ca; s=mail; t=1675777788; bh=Fk9kcWxVQOicUOli2GDnWKYXwWbSP2JxGIh5CiYN24g=; h=Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=vCYNeQfR+ipIKFRZ6/dYLgD6EFBQVr7R99ncYbYkwp7dcioETRdpdVFlhguDWbfEn ZbmxtKxfyKDOZFFgSSbWRXZf3K+pv4Z0IP9/64JierbE6RZ6M4NSt2wUf1jUQzOVEV 7ZuieAYI6vjTvDbzTUvml9zI/3w9CZCujcw82hV4= Message-ID: <0da46219-6777-165e-92b6-d3df984d284c@simark.ca> Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2023 08:49:47 -0500 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.7.1 Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 0/8] gdbserver improvements for AArch64 SVE support To: Pedro Alves , Thiago Jung Bauermann , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20230130044518.3322695-1-thiago.bauermann@linaro.org> <28bdd610-982d-aebb-ebc7-17b6d5fd80ed@palves.net> Content-Language: en-US From: Simon Marchi In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.4 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,NICE_REPLY_A,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: >> Tangentially, I'm wondering if querying qXfer:features:read (mostly >> fetching "target.xml" is going to become thread-sensitive. In other >> words, if GDB set the general thread to a thread with vq == A, gets >> target.xml, then sets the general thread to a thread with vq == B, then >> gets target.xml, is it going to get two different target descriptions? >> I think that it would make sense to do so *. > > I am not so sure about that making sense. > > As target.xml is documented as the main tdesc, it would continue that way, > with "main" meaning the tdesc that the initial thread has when the process > is first started. My interpretation of the work "main" here was "top-level". At least, I suppose that's what the original author meant, because I suppose it was written assuming there's a single target description "tree" per process. So there wouldn't need to be the need to differentiate "main" vs "secondary". Simon