From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CCA33857711 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 11:56:47 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.2 sourceware.org 3CCA33857711 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1686743806; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=vrM099Fg2ZiCSPNwoezgWu3OkJ638DSmaYzi7pOKjlc=; b=AsPUFT8xm+orHuOENnE3CWZh/MXBYFNJ34UN38cEY9+/Cq3FQFbtU4h6ufWOOxlGSGSfLg l/Oh/53vbcG95L3p5SLyn6bpN58grm2TNPLd1mJ1lakLK1FksDScR1qWn3+uv/QM+ogtOz VavlBlnxZbXxjT82/VK01iLYVS+X/ls= Received: from mail-wr1-f72.google.com (mail-wr1-f72.google.com [209.85.221.72]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-471-SWOJY4GoPTOKWzNMpsi4Hg-1; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 07:56:45 -0400 X-MC-Unique: SWOJY4GoPTOKWzNMpsi4Hg-1 Received: by mail-wr1-f72.google.com with SMTP id ffacd0b85a97d-30fd2a2496eso542848f8f.0 for ; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 04:56:45 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1686743804; x=1689335804; h=mime-version:message-id:date:references:in-reply-to:subject:cc:to :from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=vrM099Fg2ZiCSPNwoezgWu3OkJ638DSmaYzi7pOKjlc=; b=WA3mL+v6+FA1vABjBvPAptCQ64DCmALrXOjOe9T7++vjpamVnwDtV5WNOLWdPyk2kh tq1horNVMSSNVjU9Z5JMiojqgZQ2m0Xo+/JdKfskUTcncyIe+PobUNAZpLHklpC2vjmJ 2oI0ATP1+yVDyjUH6dVOErWgccz+ElURjme7U/xPIvG1fzhTRWVxiRf+kp7BHMYMz7fo Rek4tKJQ+pytcVOek7uznNAA5ZMXok+YpcaixbqLYB7v8oT71/BKRVXUsM0xONGX4S5Y RbrL6i+Azs6eImNXlpzIXtILAaiwqHT1FvoDj9evNB35xPHZwa9B23b+fqq6Jc/nM8dE JmvQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AC+VfDyLokoP8SNEIvcvF4R0y1RxYGwqG9ElSj3CnzDQI5pToEsE/+45 GMLCQO9YIgk2c+vnLuP11YYvPvFIwMQyaj7QfNYfleTukch+1cH8kZ8+bCxu261G2nZbcnks76t iPaSUR0fvPY5JlO8vyx7OFanRWnvYbg== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:5689:0:b0:30a:900b:6bf4 with SMTP id f9-20020a5d5689000000b0030a900b6bf4mr1252152wrv.0.1686743804318; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 04:56:44 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACHHUZ4+NM0UbeoGPUQ+BaHqQp4XgemXVjZVRRDh03EDN9zFEEWi8DGEJe9HLyFEJe0G8D2io1RVFA== X-Received: by 2002:a5d:5689:0:b0:30a:900b:6bf4 with SMTP id f9-20020a5d5689000000b0030a900b6bf4mr1252142wrv.0.1686743804051; Wed, 14 Jun 2023 04:56:44 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (2.72.115.87.dyn.plus.net. [87.115.72.2]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m6-20020a5d6246000000b0030e52d4c1bcsm18203364wrv.71.2023.06.14.04.56.43 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 14 Jun 2023 04:56:43 -0700 (PDT) From: Andrew Burgess To: Simon Farre , Tom Tromey Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] gdb/dap - Add support for additional target types In-Reply-To: <2f1611d0-58d9-93ac-e442-eabdb9fdd1ae@gmail.com> References: <20230613120628.49014-1-simon.farre.cx@gmail.com> <87a5x35i25.fsf@tromey.com> <2f1611d0-58d9-93ac-e442-eabdb9fdd1ae@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2023 12:56:42 +0100 Message-ID: <87mt12w939.fsf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.7 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_NONE,TXREP,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: Simon Farre via Gdb-patches writes: >> I don't really understand this part of the implementation. >> >> However, I was wondering if we really want to bother with all this. >> Perhaps instead we should just have the clients pass any old "target" >> argument as a string and have gdb invoke '"target " + client_string'. >> I guess I don't see a whole lot of value in trying to separate out the >> various parameters somehow. > > I think you're right actually. I looked over the other `target` commands > and it seems as though they all > > take just 1 parameter, which makes this implementation > superfluous/over-designed. I think the > > simple string approach, where the user passes `remote ` or > `extended-remote ` is better. I know this change was focused on remote/extended-remote, but just to backup what Tom is suggesting, 'target sim' takes an arbitrary set of options, which can vary depending on which simulator is being invoked, there's no one single set of arguments. Thus just passing any argument string through from Python to GDB will be best for that target. Thanks, Andrew