Re: Documenting E. packet. (was Re: [patch] Fix PR 13392 : check offset of JMP insn)

[Philippe Waroquiers <philippe.waroquiers@skynet.be>]

On Wed, 2012-03-07 at 20:59 +0000, Pedro Alves wrote:
> > It looks better if at all places where an E NN is accepted by GDB,
> > GDB would also accept an E. packet.
> 
> 
> Yeah, though we'd a careful audit.  We should be careful in avoiding the
> case of with newer stubs sending "E.xxx" to GDBs that haven't been updated,
> and those GDBs not understanding it as an error packet.
Not clear to me how this can be achieved. 

E.g. if qRcmd now accepts an E. error packet in gdb 7.5,
and a stub is modified to send such an E., trying to use
this stub with gdb 7.4 or before will not give the expected behaviour
when E. is returned by the new stub to the old gdb.

Unless the new stub would have a way to know that the gdb does not
understand E. reply to qRcmd ?

> 
> > But that is not the current behaviour, so either remote.c is
> > changed to consistently accept E NN and E. everywhere,
> > or the protocol doc must match the current behaviour,
> > and indicate for each packet if an E NN and/or an E. error is
> > accepted.
> 
> 
> In any case, the documentation should be updated.
Yes, either both code and doc, or only doc.

Philippe