From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 3323 invoked by alias); 9 May 2002 00:53:56 -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 3164 invoked from network); 9 May 2002 00:53:54 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 May 2002 00:53:54 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 175cBo-0003hh-00; Wed, 08 May 2002 20:53:48 -0400 Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 17:53:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Andrew Cagney Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Remote UDP support Message-ID: <20020509005348.GA14040@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20020508232636.GA10279@nevyn.them.org> <3CD9C53D.5060704@cygnus.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3CD9C53D.5060704@cygnus.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00252.txt.bz2 On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 08:39:25PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > >A patch for this feature was supported a year or so ago, but never went > >in. > > (lack of assignment the last time it was posted from memory). Yep. > >I had a need for this a couple of days ago, so I did it over from scratch; > >it's much easier now than it was at the time. The name of ser-tcp.c is a > >bit wrong after this patch; I can either rename the file to ser-net.c or > >just update some comments to match. Got a preference? Otherwise OK? > > From memory, the last time this came up the conclusion was that: I didn't see any of these conclusions when I looked. Oh well. None of them were in the thread with the original patch or the discussion about queuing it for 5.1. > - It isn't at all reliable (rather than mostly reliable as across TCP or > serial). The entire ``T'' stop packet can be lost and neither GDB, nor > the target, would notice. Certainly. I also see a comment about the G packet needing to fit in one UDP packet, although I'm not 100% sure that's right. > - it wasn't necessary - there are micro tcp implementations around that > implement sufficient TCP for the remote protocol to work Still bigger than a polled UDP implementation, and much more complicated. Implementing a tiny UDP stack is simple! Sure, it isn't reliable at all; so use it on small networks and be careful :) > Check the archives (search for mark salter?). You vastly overestimate ht:/Dig if you think that's possible. I really want that program killed. > One theory put forward was to have GDB print a banner(6) sized warning > (and get confirmation) before accepting the option. I have to admit, I don't see the point. A big warning in the documentation, maybe, but such a confirmation query would drive me crazy if I actually needed to use this regularly. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer