From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26501 invoked by alias); 13 Jun 2006 18:43:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 26493 invoked by uid 22791); 13 Jun 2006 18:43:17 -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; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:43:15 +0000 Received: from drow by nevyn.them.org with local (Exim 4.54) id 1FqDr7-0004IQ-VD for gdb-patches@sourceware.org; Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:43:14 -0400 Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:43:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: RFC: Remote "qSupported" features probe Message-ID: <20060613184313.GB16297@nevyn.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <20060612195313.GA11276@nevyn.them.org> <448E7A7D.5090506@codesourcery.com> <20060613130728.GA4737@nevyn.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403 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: 2006-06/txt/msg00197.txt.bz2 On Tue, Jun 13, 2006 at 09:41:19PM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote: > > Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2006 09:07:28 -0400 > > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > > > > 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. > > Daniel, if Nathan didn't understand this from the text, it's a clear > sign that something like the above should be added to make things more > self-explanatory. Yes, I'll plan to add a note about this and repost; I'm just not going to do it today. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery