Re: [remote protocol] support for disabling packet acknowledgement

[Daniel Jacobowitz <drow@false.org>]

On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 08:19:36PM -0400, Sandra Loosemore wrote:
> My suggestion for dealing with the breakage was for the stub to send an  
> out-of-band ^C back to GDB when it has something to report, rather than 
> sending an actual stop reply asynchronously.  Then GDB could 
> (synchronously) poll the stub with an "eh, what's up?" packet, the stub 
> could reply, the normal +/- acks wouldn't be any more broken than they are 
> now, the stub could resend the ^C without any possibility of confusion if 
> it thought GDB hadn't gotten it the first time, etc.  I still think that's 
> workable, but the reaction here was "let's not go there; let's just assume 
> the connection is reliable".  I think everyone else's brain had exploded 
> by that point as well.  ;-)

Hmm.  I hadn't thought about the "can resend" bit.  You're right.  I
even have a design document and implementation lying around (from Jim
Blandy) for a new type of response which would work.  Let's discuss
that separately.

Assuming it does not become a dependency, Paul, do you have any other
objection?

-- 
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery