This is the mail archive of the
gdb-prs@sources.redhat.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: gdb/633: fully qualified pathnames in solib_map_sections() andremote debugging
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at ges dot redhat dot com>
- To: nobody at sources dot redhat dot com
- Cc: gdb-prs at sources dot redhat dot com,
- Date: 12 Aug 2002 16:28:01 -0000
- Subject: Re: gdb/633: fully qualified pathnames in solib_map_sections() andremote debugging
- Reply-to: Andrew Cagney <ac131313 at ges dot redhat dot com>
The following reply was made to PR gdb/633; it has been noted by GNATS.
From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@ges.redhat.com>
To: Kevin Buettner <kevinb@redhat.com>
Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@mvista.com>, jorma.laaksonen@hut.fi,
gdb-gnats@sources.redhat.com, gdb@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: gdb/633: fully qualified pathnames in solib_map_sections() and
remote debugging
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2002 12:19:52 -0400
> At the moment, I like the first approach better because it's simpler.
> I'd prefer that we wait on the more complicated approach until a need
> is demonstrated for the additional complexity.
>
>
>> Adding a local/remote test is going to be easier.
>
>
> Do we already have such a test?
Well, looking at some finally dead hacks, ....
int
remote_Z_write_wp_packet_supported_p (void)
{
struct remote_state *rs = get_remote_state ();
/* Don't even think about it if the remote target isn't selected. */
/* FIXME: cagney/2002-05-19: This shouldn't be necessary - the
WATCHPOINT methods should be in the target vector. Ulgh! */
if (target_shortname == NULL
|| strcmp (target_shortname, "remote") != 0)
return 0;
notice that the problem it was trying to avoid was with ``target sim''.
So in the above the question is no longer local/remote but local VS
remote VS sim VS ....
Andrew