Re: [PATCH 1/4] Query supported notifications by qSupported

[Yao Qi <yao at codesourcery dot com>]

On 12/18/2013 10:11 PM, Pedro Alves wrote:
> But is there any real benefit to the extra "Notifications="
> indirection, rather than just treat notifications as regular
> qSupported features?  IOW, why not simply:
> 
>    --> qSupported:XXX;N1+;N2+;N3+;N2ext+;ultimatefeature+
> 
> ?
> 
> I.e., GDB supports XXX; N1 notifications; N2 notifications;
> N3 notifications; foo extension on N2 notifications;
> and the "ultimatefeature" feature, which actually
> implies support for 3 different notifications.)

This will simplify the parsing and checking a given notification
is supported or not.  I didn't consider this approach when wrote
this patch.

Each notification doesn't look like a feature to me(, but some one
else may think notification is a feature).  The only
benefit I can think of now is to avoid name clashes.  A
third-party stub supports one notification Nfoo and GDB doesn't
have such feature or notification.  During the development, we add
a new feature Nfoo in GDB, so "N1+;Nfoo+;" confuses GDB, but
"Notifications=N1,Nfoo" doesn't.  On the other hand, it is better
to keep notification related code in remote-notif.c.

Again, I don't have a strong opinion on this.

-- 
Yao (éå)