From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 19003 invoked by alias); 30 Jan 2008 15:46:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 18995 invoked by uid 22791); 30 Jan 2008 15:46:05 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from NaN.false.org (HELO nan.false.org) (208.75.86.248) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:45:42 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E40E98214; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:45:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 313419801D; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 15:45:40 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1JKF87-0004fj-2e; Wed, 30 Jan 2008 10:45:39 -0500 Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:52:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Zoltan Filyo Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: remote protocol patch Message-ID: <20080130154538.GA17097@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Zoltan Filyo , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <1201703427.7578.64.camel@mwlx285> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1201703427.7578.64.camel@mwlx285> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-12-11) X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2008-01/txt/msg00799.txt.bz2 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