On Wed, 12 Feb 2020, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > That's actually quite similar to what I considered first, before I
> > changed my mind. Whatever.
>
> Doing it in gdbserver/ has the advantage that it stays under gdbserver's
> control, so it doesn't need syncing code with the gcc tree. I know of at
On 2/11/20 9:01 PM, Maciej W. Rozycki wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, Tom Tromey wrote:
>
>> Maciej> Correct fallout from commit 919adfe84092 ("Move gdbserver to top
>> level")
>> Maciej> and revert to not building `gdbserver' in a cross-configuration,
>> that is
>> Maciej> where host != target,
On Tue, 11 Feb 2020, Tom Tromey wrote:
> Maciej> Correct fallout from commit 919adfe84092 ("Move gdbserver to top
> level")
> Maciej> and revert to not building `gdbserver' in a cross-configuration, that
> is
> Maciej> where host != target, matching the documented behaviour. We have no
> way
> "Maciej" == Maciej W Rozycki writes:
Maciej> Correct fallout from commit 919adfe84092 ("Move gdbserver to top
level")
Maciej> and revert to not building `gdbserver' in a cross-configuration, that
is
Maciej> where host != target, matching the documented behaviour. We have no
way
Macie
Correct fallout from commit 919adfe84092 ("Move gdbserver to top level")
and revert to not building `gdbserver' in a cross-configuration, that is
where host != target, matching the documented behaviour. We have no way
to support non-native `gdbserver', and native `gdbserver' is usually of
no u
