From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 105134 invoked by alias); 11 Feb 2016 17:31:53 -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 105117 invoked by uid 89); 11 Feb 2016 17:31:52 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.1 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=gdb.server, UD:gdb.server X-HELO: mx1.redhat.com Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES256-GCM-SHA384 encrypted) ESMTPS; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 17:31:52 +0000 Received: from int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.26]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EFE453BF558; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 17:31:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx13.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u1BHVl76011774; Thu, 11 Feb 2016 12:31:49 -0500 Message-ID: <56BCC583.1050209@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2016 17:31:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Luis Machado , Gary Benson CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remote debugging without a binary (regression) References: <1455200365-5270-1-git-send-email-lgustavo@codesourcery.com> <20160211163510.GA21352@blade.nx> <56BCBF8F.8040601@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <56BCBF8F.8040601@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-02/txt/msg00381.txt.bz2 On 02/11/2016 05:06 PM, Luis Machado wrote: > Does that make it clear? Sounds like we're missing a test. Say, a test in gdb.server/ that: #1 - does "set sysroot /dev/null" #2 - connects #3 - does "disassemble", "si", "info registers", or something. Sounds like we currently fail step #2. Steps #3 would be there just to make sure the session is not semi-borked even if we connected successfully. Thanks, Pedro Alves