Re: GDB-Protocol: Version/Protocol packet

[Stan Shebs <shebs@cygnus.com>]

   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.

							Stan