From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9320 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2013 16:40:19 -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 9308 invoked by uid 89); 11 Dec 2013 16:40:19 -0000 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none X-Virus-Found: No X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-0.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT,FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-HELO: mail-wg0-f46.google.com Received: from Unknown (HELO mail-wg0-f46.google.com) (74.125.82.46) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.93/v0.84-503-g423c35a) with (AES128-SHA encrypted) ESMTPS; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 16:40:18 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id m15so6554085wgh.1 for ; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 08:40:09 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.194.48.74 with SMTP id j10mr2214784wjn.41.1386780009409; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 08:40:09 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.194.123.4 with HTTP; Wed, 11 Dec 2013 08:40:09 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <52A750AA.1080807@redhat.com> References: <5265022F.8060203@mentor.com> <52654A2C.9010202@redhat.com> <529707C7.4040504@mentor.com> <5298AE7C.6020607@redhat.com> <529C80D2.2080608@mentor.com> <529C9B42.20600@redhat.com> <529D62F7.80701@mentor.com> <52A22582.8040509@redhat.com> <52A40015.207@mentor.com> <52A61E86.3020005@redhat.com> <52A750AA.1080807@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2013 16:40:00 -0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] Let gdbserver doesn't tell GDB it support target-side breakpoint conditions and commands if it doesn't support 'Z' packet From: Doug Evans To: Pedro Alves Cc: Hui Zhu , gdb-patches ml Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-IsSubscribed: yes X-SW-Source: 2013-12/txt/msg00438.txt.bz2 On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Pedro Alves wrote: >> Doug wrote: >> If we must change things, I would prefer having a predicate >> and call that first. > > I can try that. Does your script API series already have > something like that? I'd guess it's probably touching this > code too. Hi. I read this one after the actual patch. No worries. > Yeah, the previous post was just an RFC, I didn't mean to apply > all of it as a single commit. In this case, there are two > implementations of that function (the real one, and then > the dummy one for when Python isn't configured in), but > only of them is documented, and I needed to document the > return code, which affects the dummy version too. Moving > to the header sorted that out. BTW, I realize this is > probably conflicting with your scripts API series. ISTR > that removes the dummy functions anyway, right? In any > case, I'll try the predicate way. Fortunately I anticipated the patch and included a change in my updated series. It'll need some tweaks if UNSUPPORTED_ERROR is removed but easy enough.