From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 2765 invoked by alias); 11 Sep 2014 19:36:06 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 2755 invoked by uid 89); 11 Sep 2014 19:36:06 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: relay1.mentorg.com Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with ESMTP; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 19:36:05 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-05.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.97.43]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1XSA9x-0003rx-F2 from Luis_Gustavo@mentor.com ; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 12:36:01 -0700 Received: from [172.30.11.2] (147.34.91.1) by svr-orw-fem-05.mgc.mentorg.com (147.34.97.43) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.181.6; Thu, 11 Sep 2014 12:36:01 -0700 Message-ID: <5411F99C.1010008@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 19:36:00 -0000 From: Luis Machado Reply-To: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Simon Marchi , Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] Introduce remote_target_is_gdbserver References: <1410447276-21821-1-git-send-email-simon.marchi@ericsson.com> <5411C969.9050107@codesourcery.com> <5411F8EC.9080804@ericsson.com> In-Reply-To: <5411F8EC.9080804@ericsson.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2014-09/txt/msg00375.txt.bz2 On 09/11/2014 04:33 PM, Simon Marchi wrote: >> Just a thought but... is there a specific reason we need to check for >> gdbserver explicitly as opposed to checking for a remote debugging stub >> feature? >> >> It sounds more appropriate to leave remote stub-based testing as generic >> as possible, in which case "is_gdbserver" wouldn't be needed. > > Good point, but I'd rather not address this in the current patch. I don't > want to change the test itself, but just make the check available to other > tests. > Agreed. This may be something for the future. I don't want to create more work for you. > Ultimately, I want to use it in this patch [1] where I really want to check > for GDBserver. I want to KFAIL a test only when using gdbserver, due to a > known bug in gdbserver. > > [1] https://sourceware.org/ml/gdb-patches/2014-09/msg00148.html > I see. Thanks for the explanation.