From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 25562 invoked by alias); 17 Feb 2016 11:46:08 -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 25543 invoked by uid 89); 17 Feb 2016 11:46:07 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy= 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; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:46:07 +0000 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 41A48C1C9DC7; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:46:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.9.1]) by int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u1HBk4s4023281; Wed, 17 Feb 2016 06:46:05 -0500 Message-ID: <56C45D7C.40204@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2016 11:46:00 -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 , gdb-patches@sourceware.org CC: gbenson@redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] Remote debugging without a binary (regression) References: <1455200365-5270-1-git-send-email-lgustavo@codesourcery.com> <56BDFA73.9000001@redhat.com> <56BE038E.3060406@codesourcery.com> <56BE0A1D.2070408@redhat.com> <56BE16CB.8050309@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: <56BE16CB.8050309@codesourcery.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2016-02/txt/msg00504.txt.bz2 On 02/12/2016 05:30 PM, Luis Machado wrote: >> > I think it should not error out, like we don't error out >> > if the target doesn't support target_pid_to_exec_file >> > at all. > Agreed. In this case "info threads" doesn't run at all. > That then suggests to me that either the TRY/CATCH should be somewhere inside exec_file_locate_attach instead of wrapping one particular call, or, exec_file_locate_attach shouldn't be throwing in the first place. Thanks, Pedro Alves