This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Copy .py files to remote host
- From: Doug Evans <dje at google dot com>
- To: Stan Shebs <stanshebs at earthlink dot net>
- Cc: Yao Qi <yao at codesourcery dot com>, gdb-patches <gdb-patches at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2014 03:28:33 -0700
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Copy .py files to remote host
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1407849103-16521-1-git-send-email-yao at codesourcery dot com> <21482 dot 19388 dot 251662 dot 22760 at ruffy dot mtv dot corp dot google dot com> <53EAA9C3 dot 2090303 at earthlink dot net>
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Stan Shebs <stanshebs@earthlink.net> wrote:
> On 8/12/14, 10:15 AM, Doug Evans wrote:
>> [...]
>> I still have an outstanding question on this topic,
>> and before this gets checked in I'd like to get it resolved.
>> Do we delete other files downloaded to the remote target?
[For clarity's sake: I meant to say "remote host" here, not "remote target".]
> Going by instances of remote_file delete in the testsuite,
> it's at least semi-standard to do so. It certainly reduces
> the chances of confusion for any functionality that is based
> on searching for a matching file to load/process.
To collect some data, I ran an experiment to see what kinds of files
were left on the remote host.
I didn't use boards/local-remote-host*, I wanted to get something
closer to real remote host testing and remove any possible confusion
on my part.
It took a bit and in the end I made a simple albeit ugly hack to my
.bashrc since I just wanted to collect some data.
I see source files, object files, binaries left on the remote host.
That's what I expected, and that's what led me to say:
>>Since we've gotten by this long without doing so
>>[and this is *still* just a hypothesis - I haven't worked with
>>remote hosts in awhile ...]
>>I would rather just punt on deleting python files as well,
>>and document that that is the convention (since for every other
>>file it already is :-)).
I think my claim that that is already the convention for every other
file is at least not totally invalid. :-)
Maybe effort went into cleaning up remote target files because they
can have vastly smaller file systems.
btw, t would be good to have another version of local-remote-host*
that more closely mapped real remote host testing to improve coverage,
assuming remote host testing is still done by someone these days
(possible alright).