From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1285 invoked by alias); 15 Jul 2002 18:34:14 -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 1278 invoked from network); 15 Jul 2002 18:34:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mf2.bredband.net) (195.54.122.120) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 15 Jul 2002 18:34:09 -0000 Received: from cockmaster ([213.112.126.39]) by mf2.bredband.net with ESMTP id <20020715183503.UGYB12689.mf2@cockmaster>; Mon, 15 Jul 2002 20:35:03 +0200 Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:49:00 -0000 From: Johan Rydberg To: Andrew Cagney Cc: Daniel Jacobowitz , Johan Rydberg , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] remote_rcmd Message-ID: <20020715204119.G14830@cockmaster.bredbandsbolaget.se> References: <20020627035114.M1899@cockmaster.bredbandsbolaget.se> <3D31A763.7020904@ges.redhat.com> <20020714173945.GB30061@nevyn.them.org> <3D31B976.5080700@ges.redhat.com> <20020714180035.GA31167@nevyn.them.org> <3D31C2DF.3000708@ges.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <3D31C2DF.3000708@ges.redhat.com>; from ac131313@ges.redhat.com on Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 20:28:47 +0200 X-SW-Source: 2002-07/txt/msg00333.txt.bz2 On 2002.07.14 20:28 Andrew Cagney wrote: : > I think I wasn't clear in my question. qRcmd can send some O packets, : > which are supposed to provide some ambiguous form of "output" from the : > "console", and then one packet. What is supposed to go in : > which? It doesn't make sense to me to limit this to one : > packet if it is arbitrary output; it may simply be too large. On the : > other hand I'm not sure I see why both O and are allowed. If I'm not mistaken, the "O"-packet is used for just transfering one character, not a string. : Sorry, you've lost me. There are a number of choices and which is used : is left to the implementor. Sequences like: : : <- O output : <- O output : <- OK : and : <- O output : <- output : and : <- output : and : <- OK : : are all valid. To be honest, I've only seen targets use the last two. : Typically the command response is so small that it can be safely : squeesed into a single reply packet. Typically it can squeese into one packet, yes. But should the protocol really put a limit on the output? regards johan