From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 9460 invoked by alias); 5 May 2006 16:25:54 -0000 Received: (qmail 9452 invoked by uid 22791); 5 May 2006 16:25:53 -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; Fri, 05 May 2006 16:25:46 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1Fc37g-0008F3-RT for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Fri, 05 May 2006 12:25:44 -0400 Date: Fri, 05 May 2006 16:25:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFA: Document conventions for terminating query/set packet names Message-ID: <20060505162544.GA31029@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20060503195650.GA13156@nevyn.them.org> <20060504015712.GA19810@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0605032313s69362babjcda4e60fe33f9d6e@mail.gmail.com> <20060504123755.GA29302@nevyn.them.org> <8f2776cb0605041024u7c420707ie2fbff8a32ce32f0@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <8f2776cb0605041024u7c420707ie2fbff8a32ce32f0@mail.gmail.com> 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/msg00063.txt.bz2 On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 10:24:22AM -0700, Jim Blandy wrote: > All right. I think one of my subconscious motivations was that I > didn't like breaking a new feature for an older, deprecated feature. > But this isn't about "fairness" to features; it's about gettings > things working without breaking too much stuff. So I'll go along with > retiring the qL and qP prefixes. Thanks. Aside from Eli's question I'm fine with this. I'm wondering if we should mark the qC prefix "bad" too. I realize there's already qCRC: and I'm not suggesting we rename that. But of the two other stubs I checked today, both supported qC and neither checked that the C was at the end of the packet. Amusingly enough, one of them also supported qCRC:, and had a hack to check for that first. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery