This is the mail archive of the
gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: GDB-Protocol: Version/Protocol packet
- To: Stan Shebs <shebs@cygnus.com>
- Subject: Re: GDB-Protocol: Version/Protocol packet
- From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 11:16:22 +1000
- CC: cagney@cygnus.com, gdb@sourceware.cygnus.com
- Organization: Cygnus Solutions
- References: <199906170124.SAA18825@andros.cygnus.com>
Stan Shebs wrote:
>
> Date: Thu, 17 Jun 1999 10:58:27 +1000
> From: Andrew Cagney <ac131313@cygnus.com>
>
> While the current non-response schema works well for the case of an
> unsupported packet it isn't so good at identifying a target that has
> support for non-aproved packets.
>
> OK, I'll bite - why would anyone care? It seems unlikely that I as
> embedded developer would have a stub hacked for "non-approved"
> packets, but not also a GDB that was hacked to use them...
>
> In addition it doesn't address the
> looming problem of actually running out of packet prefixes.
>
> Well, after 15 years we've used about half the alphabet, so in, uh,
> 2014 we would have to go to **gasp** a second character. Seeing as
> how 'q' is already being used to pass commands with various long
> names, the pressure to use new letters is even less than it was.
>
> The danger I see here is that you're trying to anticipate problems
> that haven't actually occurred, so it's too hard to know whether the
> solution will work for problems that actually do occur; but if you've
> specified and implemented already, then you're stuck with supporting
> it, *and* you still have to add new code that solves the actual
> problems.
Perhaphs.
Looking at the ``q'' packet though, remote.c has managed to accumulate
code that rules out:
qL.*
qP.*
qC.* (because of how one stub is written)
And I think I even saw a ``K'' somewhere. At least the person that
added the CRC: packet got it right :-)
To close this one, what I intend doing is:
o tighten up the spec's for ``q'' so we don't
get more bad packets
o pull this proposal and do the breakpoint
packet proposal with ``zZ'' (for want of
a better letter).
Andrew