Re: [Fwd: [patch] UDP transport support]

[Fernando Nasser <fnasser@cygnus.com>]

> Do you mind changing the syntax the parameter NAME to
> serial.c:serial_open () to
> tcp:<host>:<port>, and
> udp:<host>:<port>
> for TCP and UDP connections, respectively ?

Hi,

Please make sure tcp is assumed by default so the current behavior is not changed.


-- 
Fernando Nasser
Red Hat - Toronto                       E-Mail:  fnasser@cygnus.com
2323 Yonge Street, Suite #300           Tel:  416-482-2661 ext. 311
Toronto, Ontario   M4P 2C9              Fax:  416-482-6299
From kingdon@redhat.com Sat Apr 01 00:00:00 2000
From: Jim Kingdon <kingdon@redhat.com>
To: gdb-patches@sourceware.cygnus.com
Subject: Re: Patches to add i387 support to Solaris x86 platforms
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 00:00:00 -0000
Message-id: <bu2iuisqt.fsf@rtl.cygnus.com>
References: <200002240845.JAA27280@reisser.regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de>
X-SW-Source: 2000-q1/msg00379.html
Content-length: 309

Hello again Peter!  Funny that we've both ended up back on the GDB
beat after all these years.

> The following patches add i387 support for Solaris x86 platforms

I didn't see any problems with those patches.

I don't see a maintainer listed for Solaris x86, so I guess this falls
to Andrew or Stan.
From rearnsha@arm.com Sat Apr 01 00:00:00 2000
From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
To: Scott Bambrough <scottb@netwinder.org>
Cc: rearnsha@arm.com
Subject: Re: RFC: Patch to arm-tdep.c -- Register flavors 
Date: Sat, 01 Apr 2000 00:00:00 -0000
Message-id: <200002161539.PAA12704@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <38AAC291.38C9F512@netwinder.org>
X-SW-Source: 2000-q1/msg00182.html
Content-length: 1027

> > And finally, the ps register name is wrong, especially in the A{T}PCS area
> > but also more generally; the name is "cpsr" in all ARM documentation (the
> > "ps" name comes from when the processor flags weren't really a separate
> > register -- they were in the unused parts of r15 -- so there was no name).
> 
> Richard is correct here, in arm-linux-nat.c, I initialize the PS register with
> the contents of CPSR if arm_apcs_32 is set, or with the contents of the PC if
> not.  Perhaps we should set the register name based on this information as well.


This is one of the few cases where I would just delete the old name.  Old 
processors never had a specific flags register, so the 'ps' name was 
'invented' by the original porter of gdb.  Since then the cpsr name has 
come into use and I doubt that even users debugging in 26-bit mode would 
object violently to this name changing (maybe we can support "ps" as an 
alias when parsing user input, but I see no point in ever printing 
anything other than "cpsr".

R.