From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26316 invoked by alias); 9 May 2002 18:44:26 -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 26226 invoked from network); 9 May 2002 18:44:23 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO nevyn.them.org) (128.2.145.6) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 9 May 2002 18:44:23 -0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 175ste-0007Pa-00; Thu, 09 May 2002 14:44:10 -0400 Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 11:44:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Michael Snyder Cc: Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [RFA] Remote UDP support Message-ID: <20020509184410.GA28420@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Michael Snyder , Andrew Cagney , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: <20020508232636.GA10279@nevyn.them.org> <3CD9C53D.5060704@cygnus.com> <20020509005348.GA14040@nevyn.them.org> <3CD9E563.3000704@cygnus.com> <20020509030123.GA7864@nevyn.them.org> <3CDABEB1.5008A502@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3CDABEB1.5008A502@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-05/txt/msg00287.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 11:23:45AM -0700, Michael Snyder wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz wrote: > > > > On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 10:56:35PM -0400, Andrew Cagney wrote: > > > >>- 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 :) > > > > > > >>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. > > > > > > That is the point! I don't want to be around when someone that (shock > > > horror :-) fails to read the manual and then complains that the GDB > > > remote protocol isn't reliable. What about a: > > > > The only place I documented the syntax is in the manual. Good luck > > finding it otherwise :) > > "help target remote"? I didn't add it; I probably ought to. Andrew, would you be satisfied with a warning in the manual and a warning in 'help target remote'? > > > set remote > > > i-do-not-understand-gdb-remote-protocol-and-foolishly-think-udp-works-so-please-enable-it > > > on > > > > > > option. > > > > > > Have you tried running the testsuite across UDP? > > > > Have you tried running the testsuite with gdbserver on a remote > > machine? :P > > Yes, it was certainly working some time (recently too, I think). > Have you looked at testsuite/config/gdbserver.exp? That works for testing with gdbserver on the _local_ machine. Note that it uses remote_spawn "host" to start gdbserver, and does not copy the binary to target. I'll submit a patch once I sort out the changes that I needed to make to dejagnu/lib/remote.exp. It also does not work on the MI tests; I've submitted a patch and filed a GNATS PR about this some time ago. -- Daniel Jacobowitz Carnegie Mellon University MontaVista Software Debian GNU/Linux Developer