From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6944 invoked by alias); 11 Jul 2008 03:25:24 -0000 Received: (qmail 6925 invoked by uid 22791); 11 Jul 2008 03:25:24 -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 03:25:04 +0000 Received: from nan.false.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA04098415; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 03:25:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from caradoc.them.org (22.svnf5.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.183.55]) by nan.false.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 756EF98337; Fri, 11 Jul 2008 03:25:01 +0000 (GMT) Received: from drow by caradoc.them.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KH9Fk-0000w9-18; Thu, 10 Jul 2008 23:25:00 -0400 Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 03:25:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" Cc: Paul Koning , sandra@codesourcery.com, gdb@sourceware.org, gdb-patches@sourceware.org, pedro@codesourcery.com Subject: Re: [remote protocol] support for disabling packet acknowledgement Message-ID: <20080711032459.GA3585@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: "Frank Ch. Eigler" , Paul Koning , sandra@codesourcery.com, 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__14539.8706700236$1215729298$gmane$org@caradoc.them.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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/msg00180.txt.bz2 On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:59:56PM -0400, Frank Ch. Eigler wrote: > Daniel Jacobowitz writes: > > > [...] > > There's a clear solution to this: sequence numbers. There's a > > convenient protocol which has them, too... > > You must have meant TCP, but gdb's own remote protocol used to have > optional sequence-numbered packets. Have you considered bringing the > latter back? Yes, I remember them. I don't think they help with this problem - the packets were sequence-numbered, but the acks/naks were not. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery