From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 13454 invoked by alias); 14 Feb 2002 16:09:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 13334 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2002 16:09:37 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO corb.mc.mpls.visi.com) (208.42.156.1) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 14 Feb 2002 16:09:37 -0000 Received: from grante.comtrol.com (grante.dsl.visi.com [208.42.141.248]) by corb.mc.mpls.visi.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 2DA9B8224 for ; Thu, 14 Feb 2002 10:09:36 -0600 (CST) Received: (qmail 20290 invoked by uid 500); 14 Feb 2002 16:15:59 -0000 Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 08:09:00 -0000 From: Grant Edwards To: Stan Shebs Cc: Andrew Cagney , Nick Clifton , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: Confusion over the definition of 'bool' in rdi-share/host.h Message-ID: <20020214101558.A20281@visi.com> References: <3C6034B6.38CB7252@apple.com> <3C60A2FC.1080506@cygnus.com> <20020206150805.A31050@visi.com> <3C621243.6B6861C3@apple.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <3C621243.6B6861C3@apple.com>; from shebs@apple.com on Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 09:36:02PM -0800 X-SW-Source: 2002-02/txt/msg00409.txt.bz2 On Wed, Feb 06, 2002 at 09:36:02PM -0800, Stan Shebs wrote: > > Speaking seriously, ADP is still in use even if it is a lame > protocol, so no it's not going to get dropped. The RDI code is > however a completely steamy pile, and if I had to do it all over > again, I would rather have spent three weeks of 16-hour days > implementing the protocol from scratch, rather than taking > the same amount of time stretched out over months trying to > get it to work right on every host. Yup. I've spent god-knows how many hours fussing with the code that parses device names because it keeps refusing to recognize serial ports on my machine. Apparently that bit of code was some sort of failed AI experiment. You'd think that if I claim I've got a serial port called /dev/ttySI15, then it would just go ahead and open it! But noooo, the RDI code thinks it has a priori knowledge about what serial ports I have and what they are called. > The ADP protocol is more complicated than the standard remote > protocol, That's the understatement of the week! :) ADP has more unused features than anything I've seen in a _long_ time. It looks more like a PhD project than something somebody actually expected to work with. > and if you stick to what actually works rather than what ARM > fantasized about but never implemented, it's not really that > hairy. Another case where I chickened out rather than doing > the Right Thing. It happens to all of us... -- Grant Edwards grante@visi.com