This is the mail archive of the
gdb-patches@sourceware.org
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: [PATCH] Implement IPv6 support for GDB/gdbserver
- From: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
- To: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj at redhat dot com>
- Cc: gdb-patches at sourceware dot org, palves at redhat dot com, jan dot kratochvil at redhat dot com, fercerpav at gmail dot com, sekiriki at gmail dot com
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2018 18:04:57 +0300
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] Implement IPv6 support for GDB/gdbserver
- References: <20180523185719.22832-1-sergiodj@redhat.com> <8336yich5s.fsf@gnu.org> <87in7e6iw9.fsf@redhat.com>
- Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii <eliz at gnu dot org>
> From: Sergio Durigan Junior <sergiodj@redhat.com>
> Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, palves@redhat.com, jan.kratochvil@redhat.com, fercerpav@gmail.com, sekiriki@gmail.com
> Date: Wed, 23 May 2018 19:40:06 -0400
>
> The square brackets in this case don't mean that the HOST is optional.
> Rather, they *enclose* the hostname. As explained in the text above
> this, IPv6 introduced a new way to specify URLs: by enclosing them in
> square brackets. This is because the IPv6 separator (':') is the same
> as the resource (port) separator, which can cause confusion. Therefore,
> an IPv6 URL can have the form:
>
> [::1]:1234
Then perhaps we shouldn't advertise the bracket-less syntax at all,
and only say somewhere that it is accepted for backward compatibility?
> Perhaps I shouldn't use @r{[} and @r{]}?
Yes, @r{..} is definitely wrong in that case, you should drop it.