From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4485 invoked by alias); 3 May 2006 19:56:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 4477 invoked by uid 22791); 3 May 2006 19:56:54 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from nevyn.them.org (HELO nevyn.them.org) (66.93.172.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31.1) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 May 2006 19:56:52 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FbNSs-0003Qi-2k; Wed, 03 May 2006 15:56:50 -0400 Date: Wed, 03 May 2006 19:56:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Jim Blandy Cc: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: RFA: Document conventions for terminating query/set packet names Message-ID: <20060503195650.GA13156@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Jim Blandy , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.8i X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-05/txt/msg00022.txt.bz2 On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 12:50:59PM -0700, Jim Blandy wrote: > > 2006-05-03 Jim Blandy > > * gdb.texinfo (General Query Packets): Document conventions for > terminating packet names, and their violations. Sorry, forgot to mention something when we talked about this earlier. I'm generally in favor of the newly documented conventions, except for this: > + Since this packet's name (@code{qP}) is not separated from its first > + argument (@var{mode}) by any kind of punctuation, it is ambiguous with > + the @code{qPart} packet. Stubs should recognize this packet by the > + twenty-four hex digits that follow. New stubs should implement the > + @code{qThreadExtraInfo} packet instead. > + Background for the list: we discovered by accident yesterday that RedBoot interprets any other query packet starting with qP as a malformed thread info request. Not surprising, since the format of qP doesn't have any separators in it. So what's a "malformed qP packet" versus "some other packet that happens to start with qP"? I think the best solution would be to document that new packets should not start with "qP" or "qL", and rename the relatively new qPart packet to something else, like qXfer. I don't really care whether GDB continues to try the old qPart name; I think it may be recent enough that we can drop it, but maybe not. I believe the only thing it's used for on HEAD is the ELF Auxv vector; I have other uses on various branches, but none of them have been merged yet. Interested in any comments... -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery