From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 22244 invoked by alias); 4 May 2006 01:57:16 -0000 Received: (qmail 21997 invoked by uid 22791); 4 May 2006 01:57:16 -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; Thu, 04 May 2006 01:57:14 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FbT5c-00059r-F3 for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Wed, 03 May 2006 21:57:12 -0400 Date: Thu, 04 May 2006 01:57:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: Document conventions for terminating query/set packet names Message-ID: <20060504015712.GA19810@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20060503195650.GA13156@nevyn.them.org> 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/msg00028.txt.bz2 On Wed, May 03, 2006 at 03:54:17PM -0700, Jim Blandy wrote: > > 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... > > The protocol as currently documented is ambiguous. Whatever we do in > the long run, I think the manual ought to make some recommendation now > to guide new implementations. The 'count the hex digits' is one > approach; another would be to deprecate qP altogether, in favor of > qThreadExtraInfo. That's what GDB prefers at the moment; it's been > around since 2000. qP dates to GDB's prehistory, but I'm pretty sure > it's from around 1998; I was at Cygnus when it was discussed. Could you explain why you prefer either of these changes - both of which affect existing stubs - to my suggestion of renaming qPart and the proposed qPacketInfo? I might be missing something - but it seems virtually certain that there are deployed stubs using qP that are going to live for a long time - especially since RedBoot uses it and that tends to get flashed into things! -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery