From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Mark Salter <msalter@redhat.com>
To: ac131313@cygnus.com
Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com
Subject: Re: set/show remotestopbits
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 11:34:00 -0000
Message-id: <200109261834.f8QIY7U28709@deneb.localdomain>
References: <200109261227.f8QCRjr27498@deneb.localdomain> <1858-Wed26Sep2001164321+0300-eliz@is.elta.co.il> <200109261502.f8QF23T27912@deneb.localdomain> <3BB209FF.4050407@cygnus.com> <200109261720.f8QHKWK28267@deneb.localdomain> <3BB219B8.2090403@cygnus.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-09/msg00362.html

>>>>> Andrew Cagney writes:

>> 
>> I don't know what happened to Don, but I trust I don't want it to happen
>> to me.

> Everyone, including me, pulled Don in different directions leading him 
> to implement the same patch N times :-(

Ok. Well I didn;t expect to have the patch excepted on the first try. I
have a perfect record of having to rework things...

> My first thought is that, the ``serial'' (well serial / parallel / ...) 
> commands should be under:

> 	set/show serial XXXXXX
> and 
> set debug serial

> rather than ``set/show remote XXXX'' since they are not specific to the 
> remote protocol.

> Thoughts?  I'm pretty easy to convince otherwise.

I have no opinion on the matter. I just want something that lets me talk
to the target. I had been using a gdb with hard-coded 2 stop bits just so
I could get on with my work. I decided to be helpful and write a more
useful patch because Corinna has more pressing matters to deal with in
the project. If you add a "set serial" framework (or decide otherwise),
I'll be happy to rework the patch as needed.

--Mark