From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 51762 invoked by alias); 24 Jul 2015 11:31:40 -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 51749 invoked by uid 89); 24 Jul 2015 11:31:39 -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,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-pd0-f177.google.com Received: from mail-pd0-f177.google.com (HELO mail-pd0-f177.google.com) (209.85.192.177) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-GCM-SHA256 encrypted) ESMTPS; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 11:31:38 +0000 Received: by pdbbh15 with SMTP id bh15so12628418pdb.1 for ; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 04:31:36 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.70.14.36 with SMTP id m4mr29911276pdc.117.1437737496549; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 04:31:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from E107787-LIN (gcc1-power7.osuosl.org. [140.211.15.137]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id qo6sm14209884pab.23.2015.07.24.04.31.34 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=AES128-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 24 Jul 2015 04:31:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Yao Qi To: Pedro Alves Cc: Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] Set general_thread after restart References: <1437392126-29503-1-git-send-email-yao.qi@linaro.org> <1437392126-29503-4-git-send-email-yao.qi@linaro.org> <55B1718B.10100@redhat.com> <86fv4dhpc2.fsf@gmail.com> <55B20B1D.4020805@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 11:31:00 -0000 In-Reply-To: <55B20B1D.4020805@redhat.com> (Pedro Alves's message of "Fri, 24 Jul 2015 10:53:33 +0100") Message-ID: <867fpphjvx.fsf@gmail.com> User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2015-07/txt/msg00693.txt.bz2 Pedro Alves writes: > I find these descriptions useful. Could you instead write something > like: > > "Test restarting programs with the R packet." > > ? OK. > >>=20 >>> Otherwise looks good to me. >>> >>> (I think it's likely we have lots of stale-data bugs on the >>> gdb side after R, as we don't resync much. It previously crossed my mi= nd >>> that immediately after sending R, gdb should refresh all its >>> remote state anew, like if it had just disconnected and then reconnecte= d. >>> That is, do most of what remote_start_remote does, except the >>> connection-specific details (qSupported, etc.) >>> Hard to justify the effort though -- I don't think I ever worked with >>> a stub that relies on R.) >>=20 >> Even GDB refreshes all its state after sending R packet, we still need >> some way to test GDB and GDBserver with R packet used. Otherwise, it >> will be bit-rotten in the future. > > Sounds like we're talking past each other. > Not sure what I said that made it sounds like that > idea would obviate the need for the test -- I think your new > test is great. No :) I have a habit that think about how to test the change before I start to change. This leads me there. > > I meant something like gdb itself, around extended_remote_restart, calling > into a new function factored out from remote_start_remote. > This is because the R packet is documented as having no reply, like > 'k', no doubt because it assumes the remote target can really hard reset > after the R packet. But let's forget it; hardly worth it to spend time > on it right now. Yes, that is a good idea, and you are right that it is hard to justify the effort now. --=20 Yao (=E9=BD=90=E5=B0=A7)