On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 18:57:53 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote:
> On 03/23/2016 09:15 PM, Jan Kratochvil wrote:
> > I still do not see there any hint that a newer FSF gdbserver would also fix the
> > problem.
> 
> That's because I don't think it's a good approach.
> 
> If we followed that direction going forward, we'd end up with:
> 
>  warning: Remote gdbserver does not support determining executable automatically.
>  FSF gdbserver version 7.10 or later would support that.
>  warning: Remote gdbserver does not support foo.
>  FSF gdbserver version 6.5 or later would support that.
>  warning: Remote gdbserver does not support bar.
>  FSF gdbserver version 6.8 or later would support that.
> 
> Old version numbers shown on purpose -- that's what 7.10
> will feel like in a couple years.  I think it's not a good
> idea to show version numbers,

In mail
	[patch] Suggest newer gdbserver if it has no qXfer:exec-file:read
	https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-03/msg00379.html
	Message-ID: <20160319201842.GA16540@host1.jankratochvil.net>
I was suggesting exactly one message (with one version number).

Only to get it through upon your request in mail
	Re: [patch] Suggest newer gdbserver if it has no qXfer:exec-file:read
	https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2016-03/msg00487.html
	Message-ID: <20160323211547.GA17400@host1.jankratochvil.net>
there were two messages (but still one version number).

I never proposed any patch mentioning multiple versions which you claim now to
be a disadvantage of the patch of mine - that is exactly a straw man argument
case.


> nor am I convinced mentioning
> gdbserver is a good idea either.  There's bare metal targets, and
> then there's also other servers like qemu, Valgrind, RR, etc.
> 
> Sorry for pushing back, but I think warnings should be centered
> on features, not tools and versions.

That is technically the right approach but (I think) that does not work for
laypeople.  But I also think laypeople do not use (at least not directly) GDB
anyway so trying to make GDB userfriendly is probably a vain attempt
I sometimes try to do.


> This bit is OK.
+
> This bit is OK.  Please split them out and push them.

Checked in [attached].


Jan