Re: [RFA] Remote UDP support

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow at mvista dot com>]

On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 10:56:35PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote:
> >>- it wasn't necessary - there are micro tcp implementations around that 
> >>implement sufficient TCP for the remote protocol to work
> >
> >
> >Still bigger than a polled UDP implementation, and much more
> >complicated.  Implementing a tiny UDP stack is simple!  Sure, it isn't
> >reliable at all; so use it on small networks and be careful :)
> 
> >>One theory put forward was to have GDB print a banner(6) sized warning 
> >>(and get confirmation) before accepting the option.
> >
> >
> >I have to admit, I don't see the point.  A big warning in the
> >documentation, maybe, but such a confirmation query would drive me
> >crazy if I actually needed to use this regularly.
> 
> That is the point!  I don't want to be around when someone that (shock 
> horror :-) fails to read the manual and then complains that the GDB 
> remote protocol isn't reliable.  What about a:

The only place I documented the syntax is in the manual.  Good luck
finding it otherwise :)

> set remote 
> i-do-not-understand-gdb-remote-protocol-and-foolishly-think-udp-works-so-please-enable-it 
>  on
> 
> option.
> 
> Have you tried running the testsuite across UDP?

Have you tried running the testsuite with gdbserver on a remote
machine? :P  I had to do some severe butchery to DejaGNU, which I'll
clean up as soon as I have time to join the dejagnu list.  Trivial
things worked fine, though.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz                           Carnegie Mellon University
MontaVista Software                         Debian GNU/Linux Developer