Re: set/show remotestopbits

[Fernando Nasser <fnasser at cygnus dot com>]

Andrew Cagney wrote:
> 
>  > Anyway, I agree with Andrew's argument that some parameters are
>  > not necessarily tied to the remote protocol.  With that argument in mind,
>  > the remoteXXXX's cause a little confusion ("remote target" vs. "remote
>  > target that uses the remote protocol" -- "remote" seems to be
> overloaded).
>  >
>  > Serial and parallel sound nice.  What if we have some things that can
>  > apply to any "remote" (non-native) target and is not specific to the
>  > communication link.  (I am trying to think of an example -- the name of
>  > a log file, perhaps?  Can you think of some other one?).
> 
> Perhaphs ``set remote ..'' should have been ``set target remote ...'' or
> ``set protocol remote ...'' or ``set remote-protocol ...''.  (But
> remote-protocol is also poorly defined).
> 
> Anyway, the entire syntax will need to be reviewed again soon.  At
> present GDB assumes a single active target with a single interface.
> While it doesn't need to be solved now, we do need to start thinking
> about multiple targets with multiple interfaces and how to specify them.
>   for instance, how to show the serial settings for interface foo.
> 
> I'll add the framework for ``set serial ''' and PR the need to deprecate
> ``set remotebaud''.
> 

Great.

We will wait for you to do the "kick-off" for the syntax change debate.

Regards,
Fernando

-- 
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat - Toronto                       E-Mail:  fnasser@redhat.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300
Toronto, Ontario   M4P 2C9