This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [commit] Suggest newer gdbserver if it has no qXfer:exec-file:read
- From: Jan Kratochvil <jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, Gary Benson <gbenson at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 17:29:25 +0200
- Subject: Re: [commit] Suggest newer gdbserver if it has no qXfer:exec-file:read
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <20160319201842 dot GA16540 at host1 dot jankratochvil dot net> <56F13963 dot 9040204 at redhat dot com> <20160322131604 dot GA24312 at host1 dot jankratochvil dot net> <56F14F1E dot 5010606 at redhat dot com> <20160323211547 dot GA17400 at host1 dot jankratochvil dot net> <5703EE91 dot 7040409 at redhat dot com> <20160406143413 dot GA2885 at host1 dot jankratochvil dot net> <57052576 dot 1070404 at redhat dot com>
On Wed, 06 Apr 2016 17:04:22 +0200, Pedro Alves wrote:
> The patch mentioning a gdbserver version opens a precedent. It'd be reasonable
> then for other cases to get treated the same way once that direction is set,
> and multiple mentions of versions would be what we'd get against some stubs.
In all cases I would also find OK to just print "Latest stable FSF gdbserver
version supports that.". Just to print what the user should do, not only what
the problem is.
Besides that GDB also already prints 14 lines of useless text upon its start
and ~200 lines of useless "Reading symbols ..." text during attachment
- in a comparison with few more lines indicating a real problem.
> Thus, coupled with not all stubs being gdbserver, I think that patch would
> set up for the wrong direction, hence the push back.
That is all mathematically correct but (I think) not helpful for a casual user.