This is the mail archive of the gdb@sourceware.org mailing list for the GDB project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [remote] Checking for supported packets


>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org> writes:

 Daniel> On Mon, Mar 13, 2006 at 09:15:26PM -0500, Daniel Jacobowitz
 Daniel> wrote:
 >> I've been working, for the last couple of months, on a wide
 >> variety of projects that involve new remote protocol packets.  I'm
 >> planning to submit each and every one of them; I've just been
 >> busy, and also some of them aren't quite fully baked yet.

 Daniel> ...

 >> Something like this:
 >> 
 -> qPackets?
 >> <- qPackets,qPacketSize+,qOffsets-,qPart:available+,qC-
 >> 
 >> "I support the qPacketSize and qPart:available queries, but don't
 >> bother probing for qOffsets or qC, they won't work".

 Daniel> Don't suppose anyone had time to look at this?

Not to speak of, unfortunately...

 Daniel> I don't know if there's any active GDB maintainers, right
 Daniel> now, who are interested in the remote protocol.  Or e.g. stub
 Daniel> developers who are interested, and reading this list.  As I
 Daniel> said, I have a whole bundle of upcoming proposed additions to
 Daniel> the remote protocol; I do my best to design them
 Daniel> intelligently and compatibly, and I will document them
 Daniel> prettily and post them for review, but the benefit's much
 Daniel> lessened if there's no one interested in reviewing them :-)

We're every day users of the remote protocol, and I've done some minor
digging into it.  So I'm interested.

I've certainly noticed that the sensing of stub capabilities right now
is rather messy and chatty.  The specific example I ran into was the
support of hardware watchpoints and/or breakpoints.

	paul


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]