From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 8496 invoked by alias); 11 Jul 2008 00:43:55 -0000 Received: (qmail 8480 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jul 2008 00:43:54 -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; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:43:34 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D133E98415; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:43:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B30EA98337; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:43:32 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KH6jT-0007Ck-Om; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 20:43:31 -0400 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:43:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Sandra Loosemore Cc: Paul Koning , gdb@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pedro@codesourcery.com Subject: Re: [remote protocol] support for disabling packet acknowledgement Message-ID: <20080711004331.GA27371@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Sandra Loosemore , Paul Koning , gdb@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pedro@codesourcery.com References: <48765B8A.6080805@codesourcery.com> <18550.24158.544203.163257@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <48766999.6070001@codesourcery.com> <18550.28000.759268.379468@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <20080710223312.GA19058@caradoc.them.org> <4876A718.2050100@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4876A718.2050100@codesourcery.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2008-05-11) 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: 2008-07/txt/msg00176.txt.bz2 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