From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22723 invoked by alias); 12 Nov 2012 18:38:11 -0000 Received: (qmail 22714 invoked by uid 22791); 12 Nov 2012 18:38:11 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-7.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_HELO_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:38:00 +0000 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id qACIbuul029838 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:37:56 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id qACIbsQK026183; Mon, 12 Nov 2012 13:37:55 -0500 Message-ID: <50A14202.4060403@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 18:38:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121029 Thunderbird/16.0.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Joel Brobecker CC: Pierre Muller , gdb@sourceware.org Subject: run the ARI on gdbserver too? References: <002701cdc0b9$542d2560$fc877020$@muller@ics-cnrs.unistra.fr> <20121112180707.GQ4847@adacore.com> In-Reply-To: <20121112180707.GQ4847@adacore.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2012-11/txt/msg00012.txt.bz2 On 11/12/2012 06:07 PM, Joel Brobecker wrote: >> > Also, I would find as a logical consequence that also >> > gdbserver subdirectory should follow the ARI rules. >> > This is done quite easily by removing the >> > -name gdbserver -prune -o >> > line from gdb_find.sh script in gdb/contrib./ari >> > but is a rather important change that should be discussed fully. > Right. I think it would be a helpful, but I'll let Pedro comment > on that one. I agree that it's a logical step. I think we'll see a lot of hits that don't actually point at issues that are problems in practice (due to the fact lots of gdbserver code is host/native code that makes assumptions on the environment its being built for, like bits of native code in gdb does), but it sounds nevertheless a good idea, considering we'll want to share more and more between gdb and gdbserver. -- Pedro Alves