This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH 3/8] Set general_thread after restart
- From: Yao Qi <qiyaoltc at gmail dot com>
- To: Pedro Alves <palves at redhat dot com>
- Cc: Yao Qi <qiyaoltc at gmail dot com>, gdb-patches at sourceware dot org
- Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 12:31:30 +0100
- Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] Set general_thread after restart
- Authentication-results: sourceware.org; auth=none
- References: <1437392126-29503-1-git-send-email-yao dot qi at linaro dot org> <1437392126-29503-4-git-send-email-yao dot qi at linaro dot org> <55B1718B dot 10100 at redhat dot com> <86fv4dhpc2 dot fsf at gmail dot com> <55B20B1D dot 4020805 at redhat dot com>
Pedro Alves <palves@redhat.com> writes:
> I find these descriptions useful. Could you instead write something
> like:
>
> "Test restarting programs with the R packet."
>
> ?
OK.
>
>>
>>> Otherwise looks good to me.
>>>
>>> (I think it's likely we have lots of stale-data bugs on the
>>> gdb side after R, as we don't resync much. It previously crossed my mind
>>> that immediately after sending R, gdb should refresh all its
>>> remote state anew, like if it had just disconnected and then reconnected.
>>> That is, do most of what remote_start_remote does, except the
>>> connection-specific details (qSupported, etc.)
>>> Hard to justify the effort though -- I don't think I ever worked with
>>> a stub that relies on R.)
>>
>> Even GDB refreshes all its state after sending R packet, we still need
>> some way to test GDB and GDBserver with R packet used. Otherwise, it
>> will be bit-rotten in the future.
>
> Sounds like we're talking past each other.
> Not sure what I said that made it sounds like that
> idea would obviate the need for the test -- I think your new
> test is great.
No :) I have a habit that think about how to test the change before I
start to change. This leads me there.
>
> I meant something like gdb itself, around extended_remote_restart, calling
> into a new function factored out from remote_start_remote.
> This is because the R packet is documented as having no reply, like
> 'k', no doubt because it assumes the remote target can really hard reset
> after the R packet. But let's forget it; hardly worth it to spend time
> on it right now.
Yes, that is a good idea, and you are right that it is hard to justify
the effort now.
--
Yao (éå)