Re: RFC: Remote "qSupported" features probe

Daniel Jacobowitz
2006-06-13T13:07:34Z

On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 09:42:37AM +0100, Nathan Sidwell wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
>
> >Comments? Questions? Otherwise, I will plan to commit this in a week.
> >I haven't seen any objections to the latest version of the proposal,
> >although I'm somewhat suspicious that I've just talked everyone else
> >into the ground.
>
> Can you clarify something for me? If a stub recieves a 'qSupported:foo'
> packet, should it still respond with any default information it might have
> -- such as the PacketSize response? Or should such default responses only
> be sent for an unadorned qSupported packet?

qSupported:foo means "I'm GDB, I support the "foo" feature, what do you
support?". The stub's response should be independent of the arguments
in the packet.