This is the mail archive of the
mailing list for the GDB project.
Re: RFC: Two small remote protocol extensions
> I see; the only reason this is not an issue for 'T' responses is that
> the break should be ignored in that case.
The consequences of ignoring the break are harmless.
> I actually handle this
> correctly for TCP, if I get an interrupt while I'm expecting an ACK.
Careful. The behavour is undefined so there is nothing saying that your
implementation is correct.
> I don't know how this works on serial lines. The <BREAK> clobbers the
> traffic in the other direction?
Often a cntrl-c is sent instead of break. GDB can also NACK partial
packets. If you go through enough cases you find gdb can lock up (until
> Right now, waits for the ACK; it was easier and I'm more concerned
> about running threads than new threads. It would be more correct to
> release the thread first, in my opinion, but that conflicts with
> reporting "some threads stopped" to GDB. Depends which direction we
If you're holding onto the thread you're effectively synchronous. The
are, only marginally different.
Should all threads be halted during this exchange? I think that is a