Re: remote protocol patch

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Wed, Jan 30, 2008 at 03:30:27PM +0100, Zoltan Filyo wrote:
> The KGDB stub does not handle timeouts (fact). The stub go in a state,
> and waiting until an end packet character or a new packet start
> character. (Maybe this is a misbehaviour.)

This does not sound right.  Could you describe your original example
as seen by the KGDB stub - what text did it lose, and what text did it
receive and ignore?

> I could not find protocol definition (the requested behaviour, the state
> diagrams for two sides etc.) of GDB. The exact solution will be a full,
> closed protocol definition and conformance test suite for target and
> remote side too. I have no enough spirit for this, sorry.

It won't help you, anyway.  The protocol is not robust against a noisy
line, and modeling it more accurately will just make it clear how
broken it is if the line is noisy.

> My patch causes a "better" behaviour only on the GDB side, but without
> affect previous behaviour (if you want that). It takes differences
> between "single send/response session"  and a "whole command resend"
> case. Two parameters "max_ack_retry_count" and "max_packet_retry_count"
> to be able to use regulate the GDB behaviour.

I don't understand the difference between these two cases.

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery